Reactions and comments to The CIRC report

[Archibald]

Re: Re:

how does whether they make a living from it or not effect this.

affordability - there's stuff all money in women's cycling to afford "high octane" doping products...
EPO's around $2,000 a pop from what a pharmacist wife of a mate told me...

Errrr, just want to clarify that this is not an accurate figure at all.

I just looked back at some of my records from 2006-7, and the following is a direct quote from one of our winter specials:

january 300k offer

For [REDACTED] only, we have this smashing good offer:
300,000iu EPOSINO rh-EPO = $1700
(5x60,000iu [10x6,000iu pre-filled syringes])

This quantity should be enough for one athlete's personal use for several seasons.

Shipping and handling, and delivery insurance included. Guaranteed delivery to USA, UK and some Canadian provinces.

Even "name brand" non-generic EPO produced by big pharma in USA, for example, isn't anywhere near $2000 a "pop" (by which I assume you're referring to a standard presentation of 2000 or 4000iu vials, enough for a month's worth of treatment).

EPO is very affordable now. What's not affordable, however, is expert advice on usage, including avoiding detection, provided by a trained but corrupt medical professional...

fair enough.
I probably should have pointed out that it was AUD$, and I don't know the quantity involved - was just repeating what I was told when discussing the "masters dopers" with someone married to a pharmacist.
Standard over-the-counter retail versus other supply avenues may well differ too depending upon sources, no?

 

[heart_attack_man]

Certainly hasn't been much reaction to this. I imagine now that the initial storm has died down, this will die a nice, quiet death and everything will resume as 'Business As Usual'.

Disappointing, but unfortunately not unexpected.

If there isn't strong, decisive action (HA!) from Cookson as a result of this, then that's his Presidency tenure (from a manifesto perspective) sealed as far as I'm concerned.

The UCI needs to be burnt down. Unfortunately, that's about as likely as me having a solid gold toilet.

 

[mrhender]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-we-must-do-everything-to-tackle-doping

Chris Froome on CIRC meeting amongst other things...

It seems he was contacted by them, not the other way round...

 

[Rollthedice]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-we-must-do-everything-to-tackle-doping

Chris Froome on CIRC meeting amongst other things...

It seems he was contacted by them, not the other way round...

I don't understand why they don't ask him if he used cortisone for loosing weight without losing power as outlined by the report. There is no need for TUE out of competition for this. What about Tramadol? Did he used it? Why isn't Sky in MPCC, because of widespread cortisone abuse? Now there's an official document which states that these things happen. Why don't ask the riders and team officials directly about this, do they use it?

 

[Catwhoorg]

Maybe they did ?

he doesn't reveal what was discussed.

 

[mrhender]

Re:

Maybe they did ?

he doesn't reveal what was discussed.

He was there for six hours so something must have been discussed other then TUE's...

I wonder if he got an invite due to a JTL contribution... Maybe he was the one who told them about the cortisone abuse etc...

 

[Rollthedice]

Re:

Maybe they did ?

he doesn't reveal what was discussed.

I was talking about the press. I mean, as a journo, you have the report and you have Froome in front of you who is willing to speak about CIRC. So why not ask him, do you Mr. Froome, use cortisone to get this skinny and maintain your power?

 

[Catwhoorg]

That is a good question for the press to ask, I agree.

I forsee it coming up at leTour pressers for sure.

 

[mrhender]

Re: Re:

Maybe they did ?

he doesn't reveal what was discussed.

I was talking about the press. I mean, as a journo, you have the report and you have Froome in front of you who is willing to speak about CIRC. So why not ask him, do you Mr. Froome, use cortisone to get this skinny and maintain your power?

There is a great section about the press in the CIRC report.. It should give you the answer..

But I agree... Of course they should ask those things..

 

[Rollthedice]

Re: Re:

Maybe they did ?

he doesn't reveal what was discussed.

I was talking about the press. I mean, as a journo, you have the report and you have Froome in front of you who is willing to speak about CIRC. So why not ask him, do you Mr. Froome, use cortisone to get this skinny and maintain your power?

There is a great section about the press in the CIRC report.. It should give you the answer..

But I agree... Of course they should ask those things..

These questions should be obvious for journos who really want to find out something since we are not talking about allegations here in the clinic or rumours but based on an official document. Especially with these vocal guys against doping like Froome and Brailsfraud. At least Nibali and Canc said they didn't read the report, next question please.

 

[mrhender]

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/the-uci-announces-further-anti-doping-measures-following-circ-report-and-recommendations/

Brian Cookson:
(more comments in the press release)

“I am absolutely determined to use the CIRC’s report to ensure that cycling continues the process of fully regaining the trust of fans, broadcasters and all the riders who compete clean. We value the recommendations of the CIRC and have now established an internal task force to ensure the recommendations are properly followed up. In the meantime, I can already confirm that we will:

• Work to enshrine a fit-and-proper-persons requirement in the team licensing process, focussed on the key roles in the staff, such as sports directors and doctors;

• Work with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and other experts to analyse new substances and trends, to assess what should be added to the prohibited or monitored lists;

• Work with WADA to improve the speed of athlete biological passport cases;

• Further build on the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation (CADF)’s move towards even higher quality and more targeted approach to anti-doping that reflects rider and discipline risk assessment;

• Work with the world’s leading laboratories to undertake a prevalence study to assess the current situation and compare it with data from previous years across disciplines and nations. This study will assist in targeting and also build a clear picture of how successful anti-doping measures in cycling have been;

• Ensure that the CADF work more closely with civil and criminal authorities and others such as customs through a newly recruited Intelligence Manager, in order to guarantee that information gathered in investigations is shared as effectively as possible;

• Actively pursue the conclusion of sharing agreements with National Anti-Doping Agencies (NADOs) to ensure that we collaborate as closely as possible with others involved in working for a clean sport;

• Re-launch our whistleblower programme, through an independent agency, in support of the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code which places a duty on riders and team staff to report any circumstances they become aware of that may constitute an anti-doping rule violation;

• Build on our existing collaboration through WADA with the pharmaceutical industry to monitor new developments and assist in identifying banned substances and methods;

• Work with WADA to support athlete education programmes and ensure that current and former riders play an active part in them;

• Work with the CADF to build a more robust and comprehensive storage and re-testing strategy;

• Encourage the CADF to order night-time testing where they believe it is necessary and proportionate.

 

[D-Queued]

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/the-uci-announces-further-anti-doping-measures-following-circ-report-and-recommendations/

Brian Cookson:
(more comments in the press release)

“...

• Re-launch our whistleblower programme, through an independent agency, in support of the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code which places a duty on riders and team staff to report any circumstances they become aware of that may constitute an anti-doping rule violation;
...

Not sure how big of an impact a whistleblower program might make.

But, one thing is for sure. The way it was originally implemented, and touted as a cure-all, by McQuaid was one of the biggest jokes about any sort of commitment to anti-doping.

Dave.

 

[neineinei]

* Work with the CADF to build a more robust and comprehensive storage and re-testing strategy

According to CIRC there are samples stored. I was worried Hein had smashed everything with his honorary gavel. Also according to CIRC CERA was known in the peloton in 2006. And SOL is now 10 years.

Pat in 2008:

"From the UCI's point of view, we prefer to look forward rather than look backward," McQuaid said in an interview with The Associated Press on Monday. "To randomly say 'OK, let's take all the samples from 2007 from the Tour de France and put them all through testing processes' ... it's futile, it's expensive and it's not going to serve the purpose in the anti-doping fight of today."

Come on Brian, let us see a different way of doing things.

 

[mrhender]

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/the-uci-announces-further-anti-doping-measures-following-circ-report-and-recommendations/

Brian Cookson:
(more comments in the press release)

• Re-launch our whistleblower programme, through an independent agency, in support of the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code which places a duty on riders and team staff to report any circumstances they become aware of that may constitute an anti-doping rule violation; ...

Not sure how big of an impact a whistleblower program might make.

But, one thing is for sure. The way it was originally implemented, and touted as a cure-all, by McQuaid was one of the biggest jokes about any sort of commitment to anti-doping.
Dave.

In any case the press release is full of "work with", "pursue", "build on" etc...
Those kind of formulations are hard to measure in real life...
Of course they need some time to outline precisely what it means -so I look forward to them specifying those measures and see them in action..

 

[mrhender]

Some interesting tidbits from Travis Tygart here:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/q-and-a-travis-tygart-on-circ-and-the-geert-leinders-case

someone doing follow up questions

CN: Even from a single year of his activities at Rabobank, you already had enough evidence to have him banned, but did you make any attempt to decipher precisely what his role was subsequent to Rabobank, when he was at Team Sky? Or was it just not possible to do so?

TT: I don’t think we received any evidence. If we received or obtained any evidence from Sky or any other team of his doping after the evidence that we presented, we would have presented that.

CN: But did you seek that evidence?

TT: I’ll have to talk to our investigative team exactly if we contacted Sky to obtain it or not. We were collaborating with the Dutch and Danes and it felt like we had exhausted the avenues of potential evidence, but I just don’t know if we specifically asked Sky for any information that they had.

 

[adker1]

You have the basic leadership quandary!

Your hired to grow the sport, make it bigger, make it better, a team signs up with real public image, lots of money, industry professionals, you will look like a hero. BUT!!! they have baggage.

Bury the baggage and do your what you are supposed to do? Accept promises that it will be different? or hold a hard line do what is 100% right and watch it slowly crumble into ruins under your watch

The truth is leading this sport might officially be the worst job in the world. Who can you trust that at the same time is fully invested in this sport with a resume of experience.

 

[mrhender]

Re:

You have the basic leadership quandary!

Your hired to grow the sport, make it bigger, make it better, a team signs up with real public image, lots of money, industry professionals, you will look like a hero. BUT!!! they have baggage.

Bury the baggage and do your what you are supposed to do? Accept promises that it will be different? or hold a hard line do what is 100% right and watch it slowly crumble into ruins under your watch

The truth is leading this sport might officially be the worst job in the world. Who can you trust that at the same time is fully invested in this sport with a resume of experience.

Yes,

The powerless vacuum is inescapable...

Only abrupted by multifaceted ignitions of long over due scandals...

Adamant rhetoric basically becomes "action"...

Thus leaving them to operate with perceptions and storytelling only...

Who wins?

 

[mrhender]

A good piece on CIRC report from TheOuterLine here:

http://www.theouterline.com/the-circ-report-a-missed-opportunity/

Some bites below:

But it is also important to remember that almost half (seven of the fifteen pages of content) of the ToR dealt with rather precise details about how the Commission was to treat individuals who came forward to admit anti-doping violations; how to use the information they provided, how to judge guilt, details regarding reduced sanctions, the return of prize money, and so on. This level of detail should remind us that UCI and CIRC had initially hoped that many riders would voluntarily step up to admit their past discretions, and discuss the broader doping situation. Yet the report mildly states on page 18 that not one single rider did so, and then adds that the Commission found this “not surprising.” This seems quite odd – as if the Commission is quietly revising one of its primary objectives after the fact – and represents either a significant initial miscalculation or a failure vis-à-vis the original guidelines and hopes. Certainly, the inability to compel witness testimony was a fundamental weakness of the original CIRC charter.

The third objective and “the main purpose” of the report according to the ToR “will be to provide recommendations for the future” and that it should “make targeted recommendations….” (italics added). In terms of this final objective – and the area where the Commission had the greatest opportunity for a significant positive impact on the future – their report fails to live up to expectations.
The Commission’s 30 or so individual recommendations cover a mere ten pages at the end of the 227-page report, and while a few are new and raise some interesting ideas, most of them are disappointingly self-evident, have already been proposed in far more detail elsewhere, or are so overly-simplistic and generalized that they seem like “throwaways.”

But in other areas, particularly under the governance heading, the Commission’s recommendations are even more generalized and obvious – almost absurdly so in places. Do a study to make the UCI election process more transparent? Strengthen financial controls at the UCI? Improve the TUE process? All teams should be treated equally? Address financial instability in the sport?
Most of these items, while clearly important, are so obvious and have been written about previously in so much more detail, and in so many other places that they come across here as hollow and naïve. Relative to the detail provided in other parts of the report, it almost seems as if the Commission got tired of writing the report, and decided to skimp on the recommendations section just to get things finished. This part of the CIRC report is a major disappointment.

And there are a few other things that would be interesting to know. What were the criteria for redacting information from the report? What was actually redacted? What is contained in the “confidential annexes”? Why exactly is it that they can’t comment on the contents of the Makarov report? How much were the three commission members individually paid? What was on McQuaid’s laptop?

While the CIRC was nowhere near the scale of a Truth and Reconciliation exercise, the fact that its members were well-versed and experienced in the process should not be overlooked. Three respected investigators, along with a strong supporting staff of experienced personnel, have written a detailed account of a world they knew very little about before they started the exercise. But pro cycling – and its fans and its sponsors – needed a complete unveiling of the wrong-doings, and more detailed and actionable suggestions for repairing the sport. It’s hard to see how it took over a year and three million euros to come up with this document. We didn’t need two hundred pages of facts validated; we needed two or three pages of clear future direction.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

You have the basic leadership quandary!

Your hired to grow the sport, make it bigger, make it better, a team signs up with real public image, lots of money, industry professionals, you will look like a hero. BUT!!! they have baggage.

Bury the baggage and do your what you are supposed to do? Accept promises that it will be different? or hold a hard line do what is 100% right and watch it slowly crumble into ruins under your watch

The truth is leading this sport might officially be the worst job in the world. Who can you trust that at the same time is fully invested in this sport with a resume of experience.

Except someone is hired from within the management committee where, based on the CIRC report they know exactly who is positive before the UCI opens a case.

So, there are no surprises. You are elected because you are ready to sell the image some more. Organized crime family analogies are appropriate.

 

[Benotti69]

A good piece on CIRC report from TheOuterLine here:

http://www.theouterline.com/the-circ-report-a-missed-opportunity/

Feargal McKay @fmk_RoI

There's a fair bit of pot calling the kettle black in that, criticising CIRC for the sort of stuff they themselves write.

Fmk hits the spot.

 

[The Hitch]

Feargal McKay @fmk_RoI

There's a fair bit of pot calling the kettle black in that, criticising CIRC for the sort of stuff they themselves write.

Fmk hits the spot.

Dead right. I read it and saw the bit about "if it comes out of the Dawg's (AKA M Cound's) mouth it has more gravitas than Ricco and I thought these ex-Lance fan boys still haven't worked out how they fell for fraudster Lance. Only when they work out their blind-spot and stick a reversing mirror to facilitate vision there, will they be able to write a proper analysis. The Dawg, Sir David and Sir Bradley have learnt all Lance's tricks and some.

I don't think they learnt Lances tricks so much as that kind of cheap lie is what dumb criminals generally come up with. Things like - I never tested positive, I train harder than everyone else, are very unimaginative dog ate my homework type lies and are used by people all over sport.

 

[mrhender]

Feargal McKay @fmk_RoI

There's a fair bit of pot calling the kettle black in that, criticising CIRC for the sort of stuff they themselves write.

Fmk hits the spot.

You could say that..

The difference of course is that theouterline are just two guys passionated about repairing cycling -posting their ideas and comments... CIRC however had access and a 3 million euro budget.. All in all I think they've done some very good pieces and that this one has some very good points leading to the conclusion that the CIRC was a missed opportunity...

Actually I'am quite sure they would have done a lot better than CIRC had they had the same ressources and mandate...

 

[mrhender]

Dead right. I read it and saw the bit about "if it comes out of the Dawg's (AKA M Cound's) mouth it has more gravitas than Ricco and I thought these ex-Lance fan boys still haven't worked out how they fell for fraudster Lance. Only when they work out their blind-spot and stick a reversing mirror to facilitate vision there, will they be able to write a proper analysis. The Dawg, Sir David and Sir Bradley have learnt all Lance's tricks and some.

The Froome comment is a weak point but the overall analasys and conclusion is imo good..

And just to nictpick a little bit -what they actually said is probably true:

A comment from Chris Froome carries more weight with most people than a comment from Riccardo Ricco.

Most people is not the Clinic... So basically there is nothing untruthful in that comment.

It can be argued from the wording that it is their opinion and I must admit to be a bit curious if so.
Maybe I will write them and ask what that actually means -and if it is their opinion -why...

Not that it matters much.. I can take the solid points of the piece and discard what I wish...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

You have the basic leadership quandary!

Your hired to grow the sport, make it bigger, ...............

No I don't think so. Hein and Phat undoubtedly thought that and acted to support that vision, (and in doing so add to their bank accounts,) but I doubt that the majority of the stakeholders thought that way.

I certainly don't think there is any pressure on Cookson to grow the sport. His manifesto has "cleaning up the sewage" as job number one.

Respectfully, no. If we are to believe the CIRC report, the management committee knew it all, yet because Hein is not elected, there was nothing that could be done. Is that 100% true? I don't think so. 50% they let Hein be, 50% Makarov getting his guy in the Presidency.

One of the more interesting things in the report is how Makarov controls a big block of federation votes. That brings up some questions about how Menchov goes double-secret positive years later. IMO, Hein payback.

 

[D-Queued]

Here are a few reactions and comments on what the CIRC Report revealed about Nein, aka Hein, Verbruggen:

Nancy Amour, USA Today: Lies of Lance Armstrong keep coming
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2015/03/09/lance-armstrong-circ-report-inestigation-uci-doping-tour-de-france/24671189/

Former UCI president Hein Verbruggen's claim that the CIRC report shows there was no complicity or cover-up is simply laughable

Travis Tygart, USADA, Statement from USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart on the Cycling Independent Reform Commission Report
http://www.usada.org/tygartstatementcircreport/

“A stunning example of deceit found by the CIRC is that the UCI, under the explicit direction of Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid, commissioned a supposedly ‘independent’ investigation of Armstrong’s positive samples from the Tour de France. According to the CIRC, the UCI then conspired to allow what was sold to the public as an ‘independent’ report to be re-written by Armstrong’s own lawyer and sports agent in order to conceal Armstrong’s doping.

Brent Schrotenboer, USA Today, Report details Lance Armstrong's 'special relationship'
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2015/03/08/lance-armstrong-circ-report-vrijman--tour-de-france/24626605/

the CIRC report now shows Armstrong's team helped draft the Vrijman report. It also said Armstrong's agent, Bill Stapleton, was involved with it too, and that he even reassured former UCI President Hein Verbruggen that the report would cast blame on WADA.

Ian Austin, NY Times, Report Says Doping Was Ignored to Shield Armstrong
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/sports/cycling/cycling-union-ignored-doping-and-protected-lance-armstrong-commission-finds.html?ref=sports&_r=1

(Lance Armstrong's agent) Mr. Stapleton also sought to reassure Mr. Verbruggen. “The (Vrijman report) document is going after WADA as I know you (and we) want them to do and as they should,” he wrote.

The commission concluded that the “main goal was to ensure that the (Vrijman) report reflected U.C.I.’s and Lance Armstrong’s personal conclusions.”

David Walsh, The Sunday Times, The truth hurts
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/cycling/article1531091.ece

"...it shows how the most important officials of that era, Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid, failed utterly in their duty to be the guardians of their sport.

The CIRC’s report says the two former presidents were not corrupt and did not use the office of UCI presidency for private gain. Reacting to the report, Verbruggen, who remains honorary life president of the UCI, said: “I am not a criminal, I don’t feel guilty of anything.”

When a sports administrator’s defence is that he is not a criminal, there are probably good reasons for concern. The 228-page report clearly details how Verbruggen and later McQuaid showed preferential treatment towards Lance Armstrong, without which the Texan’s cheating could not have gone undetected. The farce that underpinned the infamous Vrijman report in 2006 best illustrates the lengths to which the UCI’s leadership were prepared to go to protect Armstrong. ...

...It wasn’t just a complete dereliction of Verbruggen’s and McQuaid’s duties to the sport but a cynical use of a deeply flawed and tainted report to protect the guilty. "

Dave.