Should this be the model Vaughters has to pursue?

Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Ignoring postives from the protected guys in the short term means in long term, the sport is compromised. Doping is an exponential externality. It is not worth to see no evil and give a pass to Armstrong, and dine on corporate America, because they disappear with the golden calf. You need sustainable growth. Doping expediency, is short term gain, for long term pain.

Cycling is in a unique position, it has GT's that go for three weeks, where the authorities could supervise teams, like the Japanese keirin carnival operations, where they sequester riders. This is to protect the gambling integrity on which the sport is based. But no other sport that has such a doping problem as cycling, has the advantage of potentially able to remove the doctors and soigneurs, over the most important event, in prestige and economic terms, and prevent the riders doping over the event. Weightlifting, NFL, MLB, T&F, Nordic skiing, all can suffer from the Rasmussen phenomenon, where riders (see: athletes) are left to their own devices.

If you quarantine all riders, for three weeks, and even better, four weeks, bring them in a week early for testing and keep them at the Grande Depart. So, no 30 injections per stage, no insulin, no testo, no blood refills, no recovery doping, euphemistically known as recovery therapy.

The UCI can do this, and institute an inverted Red Queen effect. If the recovery doping is prohibited because the logistics are not possible, and you have a a total body hemoglobin test, then perhaps, perhaps then, you will have a clean winner.

But, I have not seen nor heard, of Vaughters pursuing such a Machiavellian play on the ASO and UCI, to institute this. The UCI spent 5.3 million euro last year, on the blood passports, that really do nothing, and just create a barrier to entry, for those with less resources to purchase the sophisticated expertise of the Ferrari types.

NB. If JV was pursuing such a Machiavellian play, I should NOT have heard, he would be doing it quiet, and behind the scenes. But, the performances of Wiggins and Vande Velde, would compromise him in executing such a strategy, because they do not come across as credible for the status quo.

If I was JV: I would whip Vande Velde, and Wiggins into shape, and tell them in no uncertain terms, they are not going to dope, but I will work on this strategy, to institute a Tour, where every rider is supervised by security for the 3 (hopefully 4) weeks. And this would be the level playing field he could work towards. As it is, it is a pretty $hitty pact, "oh be clean guys, suffer in the gruppetto, get your two years on minimum, then we will find the next greatest talent for your spot after you never cracked the A team". That is not palatable to the alpha.

So, where is the macro strategy of Vaughters? Where is his play on restricting the gains of Contador and Armstrong. He has worked on the micro, the internal program to get the gains in the wind tunnel, and allocating resources to the TTT where you can see definite gains from your investment. JV would say he is investing in the blood passport, and that is his macro contribution.

Nup, does not cut it. The blood passport is an expensive waste.

If I was the UCI I would invest that 5.3 million euro, into supervision of the 3 GTs. I think they would cost around 2 million euro per GT.

If you can possibly create a clean winner at the Tour, via 2 means, a total hemoglobin test, plus a 198 rider supervision 24/7 intra-tour, then this will be one massive inverted Red Queen effect. It could even open the monuments to the possibility of winning clean.

This is what you have to pursue JV. Quit the bs about the Tour and it can be won clean. Work towards that goal, on a macro and political level. Do not kid yourself, and us, that is will occur in this current dynamic.

Get the recovery drugs out. Get the hemoglobin to natural start level. A smart politician can do this. No one thinks JV is stupid, if anyone can do it, you probably could. There are few, if any, who have the motivation to pursue this strategy.

It has to be wiser, to allocate that blood passport money, to a more potent program. I know most riders, and even most riders who are doping, would prefer to ride clean, if it was an even playing field. There are only a few draggers, like Armstrong, who wish to get an advantage with their medical program.

A smart politican will build the constiuencies, to get this done. The French will want a Tour winner, but even with their (mega-charged) swim sprint team, they are reticent to really pull the trigger on a big time medical program. Moreau in 2007 was the last guy to show some spark, and if he had a big time program, he probably could have got on the podium. Big time program avec the recovery 30 injections.

So the French are the first constituency. Build via the paths of least resistance, and keep building. The ASO would love to present to their nation a French Tour winner. This is how they will do it. There are no riders now, no espoirs or under 25 riders, Rolland, di Gregorio, Coppell, they are not quite Tour calibre winners. And Roman Feillu's brother is a solid journeyman, nothing more. I may be underselling Rolland.

Get Wiggins and Vande Velde to ride clean, because you need the credibility. Then present this model to the UCI and ASO. This should have a definite trickle down effect. I would love to see the Schlecks go backwards faster than the Maginot line. Wipe that smug look of their faces.

My solution is macro and political. Hurt Armstrong via enforcement of the prohibition of the recovery programs. Wiggins and Vande Velde would be for that, as Steffan is not pulling out a bag of tricks with insulin and 29 other doses working on the CNS and cardiac and blood system. And even tho Wiggins crit rose, I doubt he and Vande Velde have rolled the dice on intra-tour transfusion refills. Perhaps just some O2 drug micro-dosing. So, no refills to Armstrong, Contador, the Schlecks and other GT competitors, then relatively, that is one big advantage for Wiggins and Vande Velde correct?

Gotta be smarter than the rest. And that intelligence is not Bruyneel planning logistics for the blood transfusions with refrigerated panniers.

There is always gonna be doping. But there is a solution, to minimise the doping gains. Prevent riders getting the mammoth gains, where clean riders cannot compete with. It can be done. Why invest 5.3 million euro in a PR gambit like the blood passport when you can make genuine inroads.



The civil liberty argument does not hold water, the civil liberties of clean riders trump the doperz, plus riding a GT is an invitational and privilege and riders can opt out, if they feel their human liberty is being compromised by 24/7 supervision thru the 3 weeks.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Qu'est-ce que le phuque?

I will first say that the civil liberties argument DOES hold water. This is sport, and these are free men, not gladiators.

Second, the Tour de France is a business. Say what you will about the negative impact of doping on the sport, and I will to a large extent agree with you. But consider the costs of keeping 180 men under constant surveillance. The logistics are staggering. There are also the costs of sponsors fleeing the event instead of associating their brands with indentured servitude.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
pedaling squares said:
I will first say that the civil liberties argument DOES hold water. This is sport, and these are free men, not gladiators.

Second, the Tour de France is a business. Say what you will about the negative impact of doping on the sport, and I will to a large extent agree with you. But consider the costs of keeping 180 men under constant surveillance. The logistics are staggering. There are also the costs of sponsors fleeing the event instead of associating their brands with indentured servitude.
No, I am sorry, it does not hold water. The protection of the interests of clean riders, trumps the current dynamic. 24-7 supervision, merely is a control where riders cannot access their doctors, managers, and soigneurs, that will orchestrate and facilitate the procedures.

If you think those actions, can severely compromise ones civil liberties, you are off your rocker. If keirin in Japan, can quarantine their riders, there is no reason why the GT's cannot manage the logisitics.

I already made my economic argument. At the moment, the UCI blows 5.3million euro, in the blood passport, which is just a barrier entry to doping for the lower tier athletes that cannot afford the sophisticated programs. In effect, it entrenches the advantage in the top tier of the peloton which are charging on comprehensive programs.

Back to you pedaling squares.

Prove to me this is a tangible compromising of ones civil liberties? They can still sleep, **** and $hit in private. The same hotels are used. The budget is 2million euro per GT.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
blackcat said:
No, I am sorry, it does not hold water. The protection of the interests of clean riders, trumps the current dynamic. 24-7 supervision, merely is a control where riders cannot access their doctors, managers, and soigneurs, that will orchestrate and facilitate the procedures.

If you think those actions, can severely compromise ones civil liberties, you are off your rocker. If keirin in Japan, can quarantine their riders, there is no reason why the GT's cannot manage the logisitics.

I already made my economic argument. At the moment, the UCI blows 5.3million euro, in the blood passport, which is just a barrier entry to doping for the lower tier athletes that cannot afford the sophisticated programs. In effect, it entrenches the advantage in the top tier of the peloton which are charging on comprehensive programs.

Back to you pedaling squares.

Prove to me this is a tangible compromising of ones civil liberties? They can still sleep, **** and $hit in private. The same hotels are used. The budget is 2million euro per GT.
I agree with you that the upper echelon of cycling have comprehensive doping programs in place. And I am not satisfied with the current state of the passport system, although I retain hope that it will progress into something more valid. I agree with many of your posts and respect your opinion. But denying rider's access to their doctors and soigneurs is rife with obvious problems. Even the use of neutral personnel will give rise to complaints such as "only my specialist understands my problem." Not all soigneurs are created equal. Remember the scene in Overcoming when the rider begs Riis for permission to access the CSC soigneur? (insert doping comment here) And then public complaints or lawsuits will be launched by riders who did not achieve their goals.

Two points to consider. One - the GT's are three weeks in duration, so the keirin comparison is not exactly ideal. Two - where there is a will, there is a way. Think of prisoners incarcerated in prison. Unless you are monitoring them constantly, meaning zero time alone, they will find a way around the system.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
pedaling squares said:
I agree with you that the upper echelon of cycling have comprehensive doping programs in place. And I am not satisfied with the current state of the passport system, although I retain hope that it will progress into something more valid. I agree with many of your posts and respect your opinion. But denying rider's access to their doctors and soigneurs is rife with obvious problems. Even the use of neutral personnel will give rise to complaints such as "only my specialist understands my problem." Not all soigneurs are created equal. Remember the scene in Overcoming when the rider begs Riis for permission to access the CSC soigneur? (insert doping comment here) And then public complaints or lawsuits will be launched by riders who did not achieve their goals.

Two points to consider. One - the GT's are three weeks in duration, so the keirin comparison is not exactly ideal. Two - where there is a will, there is a way. Think of prisoners incarcerated in prison. Unless you are monitoring them constantly, meaning zero time alone, they will find a way around the system.
well, supervise the soigneur. Offer only a choice of massage oils the soigneur can use, and stringent supervision, so they cannot slip a mickey.

2nd point. Yes, they will try and smuggle in products. No doubt. But this is about limiting the gains. They would be supervised 24/7, in the same hotels, all riders 2 watchdogs assigned to them, but they would have time in their hotel rooms, showers, toilet etc. Just the rooms would be swept. Small injections would be difficult to get thru the system. And no outsider could apply them.

Listen, the logistics are infintely complicated. As you say, "where there is a will". Well yes, but where there is a will to limit doping, well, these putative complex procedures, are really quite simple. Think of most manufacturing and retail firms, and their operations and supply chains if you want to get into complexity. This would be relatively simple for ASO/RCS and Unipublic in comparison.

If there is a will, this would be more effective than the blood passport.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Constant surveillance is not realistic. Random search and seizure is definitely a possibility. A person committing fraud and illegal use of medications does not enjoy civil liberties.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
scribe said:
A person committing fraud and illegal use of medications does not enjoy civil liberties.
True, but in a free and just society you have to have evidence of those illegal acts to justify the suspension of those liberties. By all means, enter the rooms, the buses, and the cars if such evidence exists. But to simply say that anyone participating in this bike race must suspend their civil liberties for its duration is beyond what I believe society will accept. Even if the goal is a cleaner sport.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
pedaling squares said:
True, but in a free and just society you have to have evidence of those illegal acts to justify the suspension of those liberties. By all means, enter the rooms, the buses, and the cars if such evidence exists. But to simply say that anyone participating in this bike race must suspend their civil liberties for its duration is beyond what I believe society will accept. Even if the goal is a cleaner sport.
I think that teams serious about competing in a clean sport, should subject themselves to search and seizure. If not, they shouldn't get an invite by race organizers.

The authorities doing the search and seizure should be a task force from within the UCI and should be based specifically on random draw to avoid unnecessary targeting on suspicion. Off limit times should be reasonable sleeping hours. But there are ways to prevent the dope from moving unnoticed to and from the rooms at that time, and before and after that time.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
scribe said:
Constant surveillance is not realistic. Random search and seizure is definitely a possibility. A person committing fraud and illegal use of medications does not enjoy civil liberties.
the keirin paradigm suggests otherwise. This is not an Orwell big brother police state. All it is, is taking the drugs out of the doctors and swannies hands, and making sure the riders movements are monitored for the three weeks.

Who is the politician with the political capital to facilitate it?

It is actually quite simple, you overestimate the impossibility.
 
May 12, 2009
207
0
0
I suspect labor laws in Japan are somewhat less favorable to the worker than what they are in the EU.

Too heavy a hand on the riders (lengthy quarantines) is likely to fall afoul of EU worker's rights.
 
Jun 9, 2009
403
0
0
Desperate times call for desperate measures, but placing a chaperone with each rider for the entire duration of a grand tour is unrealistic. The cost would be extreme and the opportunities for bribery to 'look the other way for a minute' would be omnipresent.

Maximum security prisons are among the most highly guarded and structured institutions in the world. Yet it is still easier to find illegal narcotics in a prison than on the street.

Cheaters will always find ways to cheat. Increasing the punishment cheaters receive would cost very little to implement. Once the risks associated with being caught outweight the possible rewards, cheating will decline.

In some arab Nations, the penalty for even petty theft is the removal of a hand. The punishment seems severe, but those nations have very little theft.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
disagree it would be too difficult for security to monitor Schleck, Contador, Armstrong. It would be pretty simple. It would be simple to put into place a model which avoided compromise and had integrity, by regularly rotating security on the seeded riders like Schleck and Contador. It would not be easy to whip out the hypodermic and put in the insulin, testo, growth, and get enough time to dumped 500mls of packed red cells.

The intelligence authorities in MI5 and CIA would be able to whip up some model that works in their sleep. Prevention is best, deterrents dont work, the risk reward is still skewed.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
scribe said:
The authorities doing the search and seizure should be a task force from within the UCI...
I'm not sure that Pat's crew has the credibility at this time.

slcbiker said:
Too heavy a hand on the riders (lengthy quarantines) is likely to fall afoul of EU worker's rights.
I don't imagine that ASO & the UCI will want to see a riders' strike every other stage, nor the French labour unions putting up road blocks etc. PR nightmare.

David Suro said:
Maximum security prisons are among the most highly guarded and structured institutions in the world. Yet it is still easier to find illegal narcotics in a prison than on the street.
That raises another problem- bribery. The teams only have to find one among the hundreds of people it would take to keep the riders under surveillance, and the whole thing would be a joke.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
I disagree that bribery would be a problem, if the structure was sound, and there were degrees of separation, and rotation of security. There would only be one dozen individuals that would be marked as candidates for bribery. When you narrow the pool to those riders, it makes the strucure and focus easier to put in place.
 
Jul 16, 2009
230
0
0
well it is feasible

i mean 30 years ago if you told someone that ther ewould be a day when a man knocks on your door any time of the night and he will follow you into a bathrooom and squat down 10 inches from your pecker watching you pee into a little cup we'd have said impossible/ no one allow civil liberties/ the cost, and so on

now, its part of the territory

isn't the argument we all sacrifice a few liberties for our own protection? (ability for a clean rider to win)

would each sponsor pay a $100k security fee for that right?

heck, give the security guy a camera and some film and they can sell the video a year later for $500k to discovery channel

i think you are onto something, its not as though the sport isnt at a desperate point in time no?
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
blackcat said:
the keirin paradigm suggests otherwise. This is not an Orwell big brother police state. All it is, is taking the drugs out of the doctors and swannies hands, and making sure the riders movements are monitored for the three weeks.

Who is the politician with the political capital to facilitate it?

It is actually quite simple, you overestimate the impossibility.
I've read a lot of your posts blackcat. Heck someone on the SBS site said I was you because I was being realistic about Cadel. That aside I've noticed your dialogue has an overwhelming tendency to draw upon elaborate and colourful grammar and wordsets that imply your argument/points are intelligent. This isn't always the case.

For example:"Overestimate the impossibility." Impossible is by nature improbable. One cannot overestimate it as it cannot exist and is less than likely to be fathomable.

We get you don't trust jonathan Vaughters. But your proposal is unrealistic. Firstly the general public do not view cycling from your perspective. Even if you are correct and Wiggins and Vande Velde are not riding clean the media has been presented with the very proposal you suggested, one where the riders have been painted as clean and off the juice. Its only yourself and a select group that doesn't trust JV and Garmin.

Firstly a realistic future cycling scenario needs to address accountability. Accounting has many principles that cycling and policing of riders should draw upon. Reliability and relevance for starters. The media need to be given a swift kick in the pants. They are not relevant, nor reliable, especially the commentators. They are part of the problem. I was frustrated beyond all measures with their lack of racing acumen and understanding of simple tactics and strategt. Most people need to ask themselves why the media persecutes some dopers and gives others preferential treatment? Suspended sentences, fervent disapproval of letting past dopers ride and yet media darlings getting a nice hug and plently of media coverage. Consistency is crucial. Also I've noticed some media outlets subtly suggest a rider is dirty, but only when their own countryman have been beaten. Why not be honest? Oh, the bottom dollar right. It's about advertising revenue.

Blackcat mentioned getting a tough politician in. Not good enough. The UCI needs to be rolled, and I dare say it, so does the IOC. Too much corruption, complacency and dirty history. For simple purposes, the same kind of thinking that created a problem cannot be used to solve it. But not in todays world. Leaders and authoritive bodies create the illusion they are doing something for the sake of appearing progressive. Governing bodies are reactive. They need to be proactive.

Doping needs to be stamped out. Blood volume protocols need to be implemented to a greater margin and unfortunately for the riders bans needs to be far more severe. Full blood volume mapping of riders (I know it will take 2 years to do) needs to happen. Testing for VO2max is not yet an option. It's like asking for dessert before an entree. Also the schaperone idea at grand tours is too intrusive and bordering on a limitation of natural human freedom. The western world will not tolerate it. Any reasonable person wold probably have seen and acknowledged this. By all means go into team hotels and buses but to place a limit on personal freedom and movement is far too extreme and costly. The system blackcat suggested is open to bribery from the word go. Slip your minder some cash and off you go.

A simply summary:
1. The media needs to be taken to task. Stop the favouritism and shoddy journalism. Facts, credibility and integrity. Take a look at the journo and comm students at your nearest university to get an idea of why this needs to change.

2. Revamp and restructure the governing body. The AFLD and ASO did a good job with testing last year in the TDF. The public misconception that the French labs are corrupt and dodgy is unreliable. Its more accurate to say they are independent and an example to how sporting/doping business should be run. People need to back up their statements with underlying logic and reason and risk reprimands if they can't.

3. Open all financial accounts. Transparency and accountability. Lets see where the money comes from and is going too. Its not too hard to legally enforce this, especially in Europe.

4. Educate the public. Explain doping products and procedures. Too few people have a clear understanding on what is actually occuring. A clearer view and understanding on the architecture of the whole system will see a positive movement in the publics acceptance of current practices. In effect helping to make cycling cleaner.

If people are given an audit on the systems in place and the controls, they will have a reasonable idea of how clean cycling is. This is not happening and it needs to.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
what, because I used an amplifier with an absolute (impossibility) therefore my position is flawed? You gotta do better than that Galic.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Galic Ho said:
We get you don't trust jonathan Vaughters. But your proposal is unrealistic. Firstly the general public do not view cycling from your perspective. Even if you are correct and Wiggins and Vande Velde are not riding clean the media has been presented with the very proposal you suggested, one where the riders have been painted as clean and off the juice. Its only yourself and a select group that doesn't trust JV and Garmin.
I have some sources who are ex-pros. They inform my perspective, and usually confirm my opinions. Not always. I am a layperson. But the prism my opinions go thru, a re experience pros. Rode the Tour, top 10 in monuments, rode the Giro, rode years in the espoirs in Europe, and domestic in the US.

You dismiss me, without even contemplating, where my information comes from. Critisising my credibilty (to dismiss my points) because of an error in grammar, is not addressing the subtance.

Firstly a realistic future cycling scenario needs to address accountability. Accounting has many principles that cycling and policing of riders should draw upon. Reliability and relevance for starters. The media need to be given a swift kick in the pants. They are not relevant, nor reliable, especially the commentators. They are part of the problem. I was frustrated beyond all measures with their lack of racing acumen and understanding of simple tactics and strategt. Most people need to ask themselves why the media persecutes some dopers and gives others preferential treatment? Suspended sentences, fervent disapproval of letting past dopers ride and yet media darlings getting a nice hug and plently of media coverage. Consistency is crucial. Also I've noticed some media outlets subtly suggest a rider is dirty, but only when their own countryman have been beaten. Why not be honest? Oh, the bottom dollar right. It's about advertising revenue.

Blackcat mentioned getting a tough politician in. Not good enough. The UCI needs to be rolled, and I dare say it, so does the IOC. Too much corruption, complacency and dirty history. For simple purposes, the same kind of thinking that created a problem cannot be used to solve it. But not in todays world. Leaders and authoritive bodies create the illusion they are doing something for the sake of appearing progressive. Governing bodies are reactive. They need to be proactive.
You cannot just get rid of the UCI and IOC, as much as one would want. Mahmood Mamdani has salient points on truth and reconciliation and providing a sustainable future. From a realist perspective, the doping legacy and the actors in that culture, are required to be involved for progress. Too many vested interests will make it impossible to move.

Doping needs to be stamped out. Blood volume protocols need to be implemented to a greater margin and unfortunately for the riders bans needs to be far more severe. Full blood volume mapping of riders (I know it will take 2 years to do) needs to happen. Testing for VO2max is not yet an option. It's like asking for dessert before an entree.
agree, but the VO@max indicator has been surpassed by other key indicators. It is just a part of the function of performance now, albeit an important part.

Also the schaperone idea at grand tours is too intrusive and bordering on a limitation of natural human freedom. The western world will not tolerate it. Any reasonable person wold probably have seen and acknowledged this. By all means go into team hotels and buses but to place a limit on personal freedom and movement is far too extreme and costly. The system blackcat suggested is open to bribery from the word go. Slip your minder some cash and off you go.
vehemently disagree. The "Western World" has no scruples compromising freedoms of others, and instituting things like the Patriot Act. The bribery subject, is the simplist of them all, far more corrupt systems are policed than preventing someone access doping logistics. And those systems do not throw up their hands and say, oh, too hard, to liable to bribery. ********.

A simply summary:
1. The media needs to be taken to task. Stop the favouritism and shoddy journalism. Facts, credibility and integrity. Take a look at the journo and comm students at your nearest university to get an idea of why this needs to change.
The path of journalism does not provide one with confidence. The new balanced journalism and talking heads pundrity from the US, where there are two sides to every story, has killed journalism. See Fisk on this.

2. Revamp and restructure the governing body. The AFLD and ASO did a good job with testing last year in the TDF. The public misconception that the French labs are corrupt and dodgy is unreliable. Its more accurate to say they are independent and an example to how sporting/doping business should be run. People need to back up their statements with underlying logic and reason and risk reprimands if they can't.
Doping is one enormous externality, the bodies need to realise that the sport is ten times richer, if they can minimise the doping to a natural level. The sport will never be free from doping, I am quite realistic about this.

3. Open all financial accounts. Transparency and accountability. Lets see where the money comes from and is going too. Its not too hard to legally enforce this, especially in Europe.

4. Educate the public. Explain doping products and procedures. Too few people have a clear understanding on what is actually occuring. A clearer view and understanding on the architecture of the whole system will see a positive movement in the publics acceptance of current practices. In effect helping to make cycling cleaner.

If people are given an audit on the systems in place and the controls, they will have a reasonable idea of how clean cycling is. This is not happening and it needs to.
I do not think this is realistic. You suggest attempting to put shackles on intra-Tour doping is just impossible (overestimate impossibility, whoops, grammar. dismiss it as impractical, sorry, failed 5th grade English mate). Well, getting the fora and media channels to publicise the reality of the sport, is near impossible. You underestimate the impracticality. The cycling fraternity in Europe just accept it as a natural truth, that is the lot of the cyclist. A cyclist and dopage. They are synonymous. The is a resignation. How do you change when that is the cultural parameters you are working within. You profess a piecemeal strategy. I see a shock strategy and revolution as the possible impetus. It is not unworthy. I just think from a realist standpoint, it can't work.

I appreciate you come from a realist standpoint, and think my offer is naive, and ignorant also. We can disagree.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
blackcat said:
I have some sources who are ex-pros. They inform my perspective, and usually confirm my opinions. Not always. I am a layperson. But the prism my opinions go thru, a re experience pros. Rode the Tour, top 10 in monuments, rode the Giro, rode years in the espoirs in Europe, and domestic in the US.

You dismiss me, without even contemplating, where my information comes from. Critisising my credibilty (to dismiss my points) because of an error in grammar, is not addressing the subtance.
No I was just too lazy to try and guess where all your sources come from. For all I know you've got access so the lost Apollo mission files or even data on the second gunman on the grassy knoll. I am more than willing to accept people for their word, unless what they write sreams out "dodgy and total bull%&*."

You cannot just get rid of the UCI and IOC, as much as one would want... Too many vested interests will make it impossible to move.
I know, I was stating a desire to see them kicked out. It isn't a plausible scenario. Of course one would have to replace these bodies. My main point was that the thinking that has created the structures and practices in world sports needs to change if these offices are to be deemed credible and honest.

The "Western World" has no scruples compromising freedoms of others, and instituting things like the Patriot Act.
Though I am familiar with a considerable portion of US politics and domestic procedure I really couldn't care less about the Patriot Act as I'm not american. I know its an intrusive piece of legislation but it has some merits. Overall more negatives than positives, but that is better left for ethics and legal debates at universities. If you want intrusive, try any number of middle eastern nations or any of the lovely communist regimes. They have little resemblance to freedom. The western world will only intrude into sportsmen and women lives if they themselves are subject to similar intrusions in their own lives. Its about equality and balance and note demanding the unreasonable.

The path of journalism does not provide one with confidence. The new balanced journalism and talking heads pundrity from the US, where there are two sides to every story, has killed journalism. See Fisk on this.
I read that before. Agree with most of it, apart from one or two technicalities that don't spring to mind.

The cycling fraternity in Europe just accept it as a natural truth, that is the lot of the cyclist. A cyclist and dopage. They are synonymous. The is a resignation. How do you change when that is the cultural parameters you are working within. You profess a piecemeal strategy. I see a shock strategy and revolution as the possible impetus. It is not unworthy. I just think from a realist standpoint, it can't work. I appreciate you come from a realist standpoint, and think my offer is naive, and ignorant also. We can disagree.
I don't think your offer is ignorant. It has merits, but like my suggestions it is not really feasible. You were simply stating what you desired to see happen in cycling. Nothing wrong with that. I was making suggestions, not proposing that my ideas would work. There are limits and constraints with what the authorities can and will do to clean up their sports image and also how much public perception can be altered.

Coming from a finance and accounting background I believe most things can be broken down to numbers. Cash and the flow of money is far easier to follow, regulate and monitor than some other physical commodity that thinks for itself and is not bound by dimensional constraints. It is not easy to track, follow, test and successfully get a positive doping offense for someone who is not only inclined and tempted to cheat but has done so. Think of Kohl for example. Should have been positive far more often and admitting hiding from testers. Monitoring Pro teams expenditure and financial data I believe would shed a lot more light on what is really happening. Doping costs money. Better programs cost more money. Think of it this way, if Enron had been subject to stricter financial regulation would they have collapsed? Probably not, but they wouldn't have been as successful as they were. Make the teams report on their finances and make it publishable just as any publicly traded company does. Even better open the books to the public. The threat of an audit or two would really shake some of the teams up.
 
Jul 16, 2009
230
0
0
Galic Ho said:
Coming from a finance and accounting background I believe most things can be broken down to numbers. Cash and the flow of money is far easier to follow, regulate and monitor than some other physical commodity that thinks for itself and is not bound by dimensional constraints. It is not easy to track, follow, test and successfully get a positive doping offense for someone who is not only inclined and tempted to cheat but has done so. Think of Kohl for example. Should have been positive far more often and admitting hiding from testers. Monitoring Pro teams expenditure and financial data I believe would shed a lot more light on what is really happening. Doping costs money. Better programs cost more money. Think of it this way, if Enron had been subject to stricter financial regulation would they have collapsed? Probably not, but they wouldn't have been as successful as they were. Make the teams report on their finances and make it publishable just as any publicly traded company does. Even better open the books to the public. The threat of an audit or two would really shake some of the teams up.
Is that you Matt?

Enron? Are you kidding me?

Mate can I tell you I have 6 “big-4” (LMAO) auditors sitting outside of my office 250 days a year. They are children billing at adult rates

This be the Auditors such as Arthur Anderson, or Ernst & Young? Enron, Tyco,
AllCo, City Pacific, Basis Capital, Westpoint, WorldCom, Bernie Madoff, Lehmans, Bear Sterns...need I go on?

No, can’t buy that because they are mental midgets who dont have a clue

If you can figure out how to dupe a guy watching a stream of someone elses urine coming out of your pecker, you’ll dupe some zitty faced kids who couldn’t tell a crit from a c*lit

A financial audit? Faaaaaark me.

Um, tell me, hows that worked so far in sport?

Look, a good start, but you do a disservice by pulling the Apollo files/ grassy knoll stunt at the beginning of your response.

We’ve already been made aware blackcat is a holocaust denier so you have to dig deeper than that
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Galic Ho said:
No I was just too lazy to try and guess where all your sources come from. For all I know you've got access so the lost Apollo mission files or even data on the second gunman on the grassy knoll. I am more than willing to accept people for their word, unless what they write sreams out "dodgy and total bull%&*."
is that a contradiction there, why the noise? So you on one hand, are saying, here is a good faith acceptance of your information. Then you are undermining me in the next breath?

Care to debate some of my specific assertions instead? Feel free to criticise the grammar tho.

Is Vaughters a protected subject? What about the GDR track team? What about the Sino swimmers? Some folks are no go, but some are free to finger? I'll go Vaughters, and I will cop it if I am wrong, be a perverse and egregious injustice, because, he is trying to help the sport. But he is compromised.

If anyone reads any continental languages there are numerous cycling forums in those native languages that point more fingers than I. The anglophones are too often given a pass, because they are nice guys and would never dope. Jens Voigt in honourary Australian for this purpose. And these riders use such a jingoistic shield as protection.

The existing media will not publicise the reality of the peloton, and if it was for them, I would be none the wiser. I wish to advance a dope free agenda, but I have no illusions about my ability to be a facilitator. And I see the pitfalls about getting carried away, and taking the moral high ground, and McCarthyist stance. I have qualified alot I have gone on record, and my posts are free to be searched, if interested. I think Lloyd Mondory, and Jerome Pineau have been the only riders to go public with their resentment on particular riders, Frank Schleck and Saxo explicitly. The omerta is strong, I think clean riders would prefer others to speak freely and publicise the reality so they do not suffer blowback.

The more clean riders in the peloton, the more who would be willing to sacrifice some freedom over the GTs to be given a better opportunity and a more level playing field. Why does it go for keirin? Because a carnival is shorter, is not an adequate justification. Why is keirin not more liable to fraud and bribery? What is the betting pool over a carnival (I do not know, just rhetoric)?

Bribery and civil liberty are false arguments when you analyse it.

The political and PR sell on it, that is the true practical barrier.

Whoever said "the public would not except indentured servitude" strawman had the most irrelevant hyperbole on this board yet.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Ozzie2 said:
Is that you Matt?

Enron? Are you kidding me?

Mate can I tell you I have 6 “big-4” (LMAO) auditors sitting outside of my office 250 days a year. They are children billing at adult rates

This be the Auditors such as Arthur Anderson, or Ernst & Young? Enron, Tyco,
AllCo, City Pacific, Basis Capital, Westpoint, WorldCom, Bernie Madoff, Lehmans, Bear Sterns...need I go on?

No, can’t buy that because they are mental midgets who dont have a clue

If you can figure out how to dupe a guy watching a stream of someone elses urine coming out of your pecker, you’ll dupe some zitty faced kids who couldn’t tell a crit from a c*lit

A financial audit? Faaaaaark me.

Um, tell me, hows that worked so far in sport?

Look, a good start, but you do a disservice by pulling the Apollo files/ grassy knoll stunt at the beginning of your response.

We’ve already been made aware blackcat is a holocaust denier so you have to dig deeper than that
Assume Jim Ochowicz or Mark Gorski was in the room when they were negotiating with Verbruggen in 1999, does anyone think there would be a paper trail to the Cayman Islands for US$500k? Or would it have come out of some black box. Those auditors are omniscient.

I do agree with Ataturk, no Armenian holocaust whatsoever.
 
Jul 16, 2009
230
0
0
Yoo Hoo

JV, oh JV, where are you?

Looking for you JV

C'mon, don't leave it to us nutjobs
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
blackcat said:
is that a contradiction there, why the noise? So you on one hand, are saying, here is a good faith acceptance of your information. Then you are undermining me in the next breath?
The bit I wrote about taking your word I meant. The next part was just me generalising. Nothing at all to do with anything you've said. Bad sentence structure on my part.

Is Vaughters a protected subject? What about the GDR track team? What about the Sino swimmers? Some folks are no go, but some are free to finger? I'll go Vaughters, and I will cop it if I am wrong, be a perverse and egregious injustice, because, he is trying to help the sport. But he is compromised.
JV is unfortunately between a rock and a hard place. He has obligations and responsibilities towards his team, his financial backers and then to cycling and the fans. Someone is going to be disappointed. Lets put it this way I find him far more credible than Riis. Though I think you've made some good points regarding Wiggins when he was with Cofidis in other threads and focusing on track. 84th or something like that in the Giro and then 80 positions better a month later. Weird? Or just not trying? One has to simply be vigilant and look for clues when listening to DS messages and press releases. Given the number of wins Garmin in comparison to other teams has had I am more inclined to believe JV is fairly honest, more so than other DS and managers. Don't get me started on swimming. Its a national sport where I live. The recent world champs were a farce. Or the GDR track team for that matter.

If anyone reads any continental languages there are numerous cycling forums in those native languages that point more fingers than I. The anglophones are too often given a pass, because they are nice guys and would never dope. Jens Voigt in honourary Australian for this purpose. And these riders use such a jingoistic shield as protection.
Agree. Most fans would never believe anything bad about Jens. Especially in Australia. He's considered an honourary aussie here because of his time at the AIS.

The existing media will not publicise the reality of the peloton, and if it was for them, I would be none the wiser... I think Lloyd Mondory, and Jerome Pineau have been the only riders to go public with their resentment on particular riders, Frank Schleck and Saxo explicitly. The omerta is strong, I think clean riders would prefer others to speak freely and publicise the reality so they do not suffer blowback.
I know what you mean. I watched a YouTube clip of Cadel Evans the other day chatting to Andrew Denton (talk show host) and he was asked whether he'd been offered PEDs. His body language, (my opinion here not fact) said something entirely different to what came out of his mouth. I wasn't highlighting that the media should say what many are saying here in the clinic, instead that some of the basics, in particular the intricacies of how testing is conducted, the frequency and when it is done and how protocols classify a doping positive, should be reported. People simply don't know. It would get more people and fans asking questions, which is always a good sign.

The more clean riders in the peloton, the more who would be willing to sacrifice some freedom over the GTs to be given a better opportunity and a more level playing field. Why does it go for keirin? Because a carnival is shorter, is not an adequate justification. Why is keirin not more liable to fraud and bribery? What is the betting pool over a carnival (I do not know, just rhetoric)?
This may seem a tad uncouth, but asian nations have a tendency to engage in unsavoury gambling. Look at the corruption in sub-continent cricket nations and widespread match fixing at the turn of the century. I'm not surprised that kierin officials would go to the measures you described. I saw a documentary on the racing in Japan years back and I believe the riders earn a considerable amount of money. Makes sense to watch them.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
blackcat said:
Whoever said "the public would not except indentured servitude" strawman had the most irrelevant hyperbole on this board yet.
Strawman here!

By the way, I did not say "except", nor even "accept" although that was my point.

If you think society will accept (!) a major sporting event in which the athletes are monitored and/or searched at all times, in the absence of grounds to believe that they are currently committing an offence, then so be it. That's the point of internet forums, a place to debate all kinds of unrealistic ideas. I will leave it be. It won't happen, and it won't be just another global conspiracy that keeps it from happening. It will also be sound financial practice, ethical behaviour, and common sense.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY