Should this be the model Vaughters has to pursue?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 10, 2009
221
0
0
Get a grip. The two big tours paid off real well this season considering the rest of world's ecomony. Sponsors and organizers et el have made money. Do you think they're going to drop a turd in their punchbowls by attempting to monitor riders with whatever means: house arrest, ankle bracelets or whatever? They're not stupid, and the fans couldn't care less so long as the sport remains exciting and the riders remain available. Many of these suggestions on this thread are McCarthyite nonsense and nothing more.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Sheltowee said:
Get a grip. The two big tours paid off real well this season considering the rest of world's ecomony. Sponsors and organizers et el have made money. Do you think they're going to drop a turd in their punchbowls by attempting to monitor riders with whatever means: house arrest, ankle bracelets or whatever? They're not stupid, and the fans couldn't care less so long as the sport remains exciting and the riders remain available. Many of these suggestions on this thread are McCarthyite nonsense and nothing more.
hyperbole. Fail immediately in your argument by constructing strawmen like house arrest and ankle bracelets. No one is detained.

What do you guys think happens in the 21 days. Are they plotting coups? Are they taking their families for picnics? Are they having romantic dinners?

No, all this assumes, there is a possibility to prevent swaanies and docs from applying the recovery doping and the transfusions or O2 drugs. This is not a police state Orwellian dystopia. All it is, is to stop the intra-Tour dopage. McCarthyite? Please.

Riders who are doping, would prefer to ride clean, on majority. They would prefer to have an even playing field, versus having to dope. Because they cannot get an even playing field, they resort to minimising their loss. The draggers in the peloton like Armstrong are a minority. It does require a revolution to change. Piecemeal policy solutions, like some mythical war on recreational drugs, are just not going to have a tangible effect.

Go and criticise the Japanese keirin promoters. They have no problems recruiting Chris Hoy for appearances do they.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
I actually proposed a system to the UCI that is similar to this. I based it on 'compliance officers' in major equity trading firms, basically someone (or probably 2-3 people to prevent corruption) employed by WADA/UCI to have 24/7 access to riders rooms, buses, whatever. It's an insane invasion of privacy, but perhaps if the guys didnt have to pee in cups and have blood drawn as much, it wouldnt seem so bad.

With international privacy laws, it would HAVE to be voluntary, at this point.

It was my intention in 2008 to have Paul Kimmage serve as this role, de-facto. He had any access he wanted. Had he wanted that same access in 2009, we would have granted it. David Walsh was also offered this opportunity.

Interesting concept, but privacy laws are a ways from allowing it. A mechanical approach to anti-doping is certainly valid and being discussed... but it will be a while.

JV
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Mind you, I think this approach is a bit weird and big brother.... I just suggested it on a "if some riders volunteered, then maybe it would work and establish credibility. Then maybe more riders would volunteer.."

I throw a lot of idea to WADA and the UCI... Sometimes they listen, sometimes they serve me with restraining orders...

JV
 
JV1973 said:
I actually proposed a system to the UCI that is similar to this. I based it on 'compliance officers' in major equity trading firms, basically someone (or probably 2-3 people to prevent corruption) employed by WADA/UCI to have 24/7 access to riders rooms, buses, whatever. It's an insane invasion of privacy, but perhaps if the guys didnt have to pee in cups and have blood drawn as much, it wouldnt seem so bad.

With international privacy laws, it would HAVE to be voluntary, at this point.

It was my intention in 2008 to have Paul Kimmage serve as this role, de-facto. He had any access he wanted. Had he wanted that same access in 2009, we would have granted it. David Walsh was also offered this opportunity.

Interesting concept, but privacy laws are a ways from allowing it. A mechanical approach to anti-doping is certainly valid and being discussed... but it will be a while.

JV
I read the Kimmage articles on Garmin in The Times last year and found then very interesting. Kimmage has been very anti-doping always and he gave Garmin as good a clean bill of health as possible. I know this will still not wash for some but I believe in what Kimmage thinks until I hear otherwise. If he has changed his opinion, I will accept it. Again, I never believe in anything 100% in cycling.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
JV1973 said:
Mind you, I think this approach is a bit weird and big brother.... I just suggested it on a "if some riders volunteered, then maybe it would work and establish credibility. Then maybe more riders would volunteer.."

I throw a lot of idea to WADA and the UCI... Sometimes they listen, sometimes they serve me with restraining orders...

JV
The GT's are not public properties though, everyone has an opt out choice, not compelled to give it up.

How about the Rebellin video footage with spy cameras the carabinieri had. The UCI need to appreciate if there is a clean winner, what the potential effect will be, and the richer economy of a sport with a natural level of doping. Ofcourse, there is the vested interests one has to depose. It is definitely a political Everest.

I also know of two riders who had their phones tapped, in France of all places, by the French police, circa 2003. Because the gendarmes were on their provider.

All this poses, shut down the logistics. No intra-Tour refills. No insulin, no 30 injections per stage. Wiggins and Vande Velde may well win the Tour on Armstrong's medical program, but who wins if the doctors can be tossed, and no intra-Tour medical attention?

There would be doctors, just not the Spanish doctors (see: any dodgy doc), and provided by the promoter, and rotated, to avoid the possibilities of bribery.

I don't think Walsh or Kimmage can do anything. It would be quite simple to maintain appearances. Kohl said it took all of 20 minutes to dump a transfusion. Can Kimmage account for all of Vande Velde's time? Ofcourse not.

They may be cleanskin intra-Tour, but what is happening before, performances do not suggest they were coming in at their natural 02 delivery potential.
 
Jul 30, 2009
1,735
0
0
JV1973 said:
It was my intention in 2008 to have Paul Kimmage serve as this role, de-facto. He had any access he wanted. Had he wanted that same access in 2009, we would have granted it. David Walsh was also offered this opportunity.

JV
Keep posting JV - the more you let us know the more I like it - not sure Walsh would know what to look for but Kimmage is no mug
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
JV1973 said:
I actually proposed a system to the UCI that is similar to this. I based it on 'compliance officers' in major equity trading firms, basically someone (or probably 2-3 people to prevent corruption) employed by WADA/UCI to have 24/7 access to riders rooms, buses, whatever. It's an insane invasion of privacy, but perhaps if the guys didnt have to pee in cups and have blood drawn as much, it wouldnt seem so bad.

With international privacy laws, it would HAVE to be voluntary, at this point.

It was my intention in 2008 to have Paul Kimmage serve as this role, de-facto. He had any access he wanted. Had he wanted that same access in 2009, we would have granted it. David Walsh was also offered this opportunity.

Interesting concept, but privacy laws are a ways from allowing it. A mechanical approach to anti-doping is certainly valid and being discussed... but it will be a while.

JV
compliance officers.

= captured like SEC

was Gupta the chairman of Citi ex McKinsey global ceo, was he about the first guy done for trading in yonks. like madoff.

obviiously these are exceptions to the rule. no one got done on 2008gfc.
 
JV1973 said:
I actually proposed a system to the UCI that is similar to this. I based it on 'compliance officers' in major equity trading firms,
How well did that workout in the U.S.? It didn't.

I appreciate the discussion from everyone though.

My $0.000000002:

ASO is also enabling the doping.

Cycling is not at any kind of crisis point. Hein and Pat do a good job monetizing the sport. Monetizing is the goal, and that means doping.

We know Hein and the IOC are okay with the doping. He was demanding France relax their doping regulations to have a shot at hosting games in Paris after all... So, Hein's not going anywhere.

The two bodies that matter the most just want lots of viewers and no riders dying due to doping.

If wishes were fishes, turn over all doping enforcement to WADA. All of it. Add back-dated testing and let's see how it goes.

Again, I like seeing some discussion on the matter, but, IMHO, blackcat's solution is grand and not terribly effective.
 
Aug 3, 2009
1,562
0
0
JV1973 said:
I actually proposed a system to the UCI that is similar to this. I based it on 'compliance officers' in major equity trading firms, basically someone (or probably 2-3 people to prevent corruption)
JV
Interesting idea, but the concept of compliance officers as such does not work. They produce a ****load of paper and everybody around them produces even more so their behind is covered, but it did actually nothing to prevent, in random order,

- the Libor manipulation scandals
- the "rogue traders" scandals
- the repackaging of ****ty loans until noone understood what was being sold
- the Deutsche Bank/Goldman Sachs to sell ****ty products to their clients while shorting the same position for their own book etc.

Sequestering riders is an interesting idea, though it is very borderline in regards to civil rights. What about access from wies/GF etc.? Not possible, thorough search before giving access? How about the personnel of the teams? Masseurs, DS, mechanics? How could you control these guys and make sure noone has a "red pill" to give?
 
Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
Galic Ho said:
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.
Me thinks here are some good ideas G Ho
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
1
0
Surprisingly negative response to this. I agree that making doping during the Tour very difficult would have a widespread effect on cycling, but I don't know about the incentive to do this for the industry. The new credibility would be lost on the casual fan/sponsor after so many cries of wolf. Wiggins and Berto will be saying "yeah so did I" when the first guy wins the Tour aquipana.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Again, I like seeing some discussion on the matter, but, IMHO, blackcat's solution is grand and not terribly effective.
if you just focus on 20 riders, the other 169 or 178 in July, are not bothered.

get the 20 who win the spoils to invert a self-imposed norm. what is acceptable.

ergo:

NOT if it does not show up it is not doping.


and the CCTV spycam chaperone thing, might impinge libertarian ideal. but so is the the barrier of entry that PEDs r for doping.

the 25 in the peloton, who have disproportionately divided the spoils, now put a down payment down on their "liberty". and those with ambition to ride pro on the continent, now face less of a doping barrier to entry. they can not pay the preparatore and Pap. tis a double bind. its not like, the uci25 will lose liberty. no, their downpayment is a concession, to the threshold peds r to an athlete on bread and water. these athletes, do not have their liberty infringed upon.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
horsinabout said:
Me thinks here are some good ideas G Ho
It's funny reading posts that would have been among my first on the forum.

Three and a half years later and those points you quoted I think stand. Would the auditing part happen? Nope. Unless it is made available to the public (UCI would likely never tolerate even that) then all you'd get is an accounting firm giving a qualifying statement that they think everything looks good. It's called assurance.

The transparency part needs to stick though. Open the books maybe not all the way, but far enough and get in some actual regulation. Do something at least. Also the media part definitely still holds today. I haven't changed my mind on that. They need to speak more. It's bad when Hayman on Sky only had one journalists, cycling news Daniel Benson question him about Leinders.

Why does the accounting side matter? Look at the news out of Europe. Armstrong financial matters were traced to Ferrari. In fact Ferrari had another lucrative business off setting taxes for riders whilst providing doping advice and services. Re Scarponi. Paid what I think was either 6K in taxes or 6% on a salary over half a million Euro. Ridiculous. Ferrari did all of that via image rights or some baloney. If the auditing happened where riders salaries get paid would pop up. It would have been pretty darn clear some teams were not sending salaries to ordinary accounts. The news coming out of Italy was maybe 60% of Pro level teams were pushing salaries to dodgy schemes like the one Ferrari was running. Tax evasion and doping COMBINED. Yet Blackcat and Ozzie thought back in 2009 it would be pointless. As I said, you can't hide anything today. If you were forced to verify the stuff that the drugs are bought with, aka income sources and destinations, then you'd catch A LOT OF GUYS. At a minimum people like Scarponi would not have been able to forward all their earning to Ferrari and his ponzy scheme because a control system would have spotted it. At a minimum it would make it harder for people to do dodgy stuff.

It's also funny reading Ozzie's comments about accounting firms. Arthur Anderson...hahahaha. So funny, even for 2009. The Enron DREAM. You should watch the movie about them...'Smartest Guys in The Room.' Has a lot of parallels with the UCI and cycling bodies. It's not about dodgy people evading the system, it's about empowering more people with knowledge of how and why people do dodgy things. More people understand the thinking, the system and methodology, the more people will call BS. Hence why I linked the media into that comment back in 2009. They are all linked. A dodgy person can still do dodgy things but if an upstanding individual who knows why that behaviour is wrong and can spot it, the chances of it being called out go up. Knowledge really is power. A lot of CONI's work involves financial accounting and auditing. The system has to monitor the $$$ because that is the prime motivator for doping and what pays for it.
 
Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
=Galic Ho;1180237=
It's also funny reading Ozzie's comments about accounting firms. Arthur Anderson...hahahaha. So funny, even for 2009. The Enron DREAM. You should watch the movie about them...'Smartest Guys in The Room.' Has a lot of parallels with the UCI and cycling bodies. It's not about dodgy people evading the system, it's about empowering more people with knowledge of how and why people do dodgy things. More people understand the thinking, the system and methodology, the more people will call BS. Hence why I linked the media into that comment back in 2009. They are all linked. A dodgy person can still do dodgy things but if an upstanding individual who knows why that behaviour is wrong and can spot it, the chances of it being called out go up. Knowledge really is power. A lot of CONI's work involves financial accounting and auditing. The system has to monitor the $$$ because that is the prime motivator for doping and what pays for it
I must confess to not being an expert in the murky underworld of pro cycling, actually in truth, I would rather not know. Although I have a very good imagination. The media aspect is sobering, as Sky have been born out of sponsorship support of a media mogal tycoon...James Murdock, in control of large parts of the media. I don't really know why there isn't more discussion on this very important connection on this forum.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
David Suro said:
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.
Another problem that arises with draconian penalties is the reluctance of judges to impose them. In pro cycling, this could also manifest itself in the reluctance of organizers and federation authorities to aggressively test for doping.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Professional bike riders are so powerless that even their fans speak of new and creative ways of bossing them around.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Galic Ho said:
It's funny reading posts that would have been among my first on the forum.

Three and a half years later and those points you quoted I think stand. Would the auditing part happen? Nope. Unless it is made available to the public (UCI would likely never tolerate even that) then all you'd get is an accounting firm giving a qualifying statement that they think everything looks good. It's called assurance.

The transparency part needs to stick though. Open the books maybe not all the way, but far enough and get in some actual regulation. Do something at least. Also the media part definitely still holds today. I haven't changed my mind on that. They need to speak more. It's bad when Hayman on Sky only had one journalists, cycling news Daniel Benson question him about Leinders.

Why does the accounting side matter? Look at the news out of Europe. Armstrong financial matters were traced to Ferrari. In fact Ferrari had another lucrative business off setting taxes for riders whilst providing doping advice and services. Re Scarponi. Paid what I think was either 6K in taxes or 6% on a salary over half a million Euro. Ridiculous. Ferrari did all of that via image rights or some baloney. If the auditing happened where riders salaries get paid would pop up. It would have been pretty darn clear some teams were not sending salaries to ordinary accounts. The news coming out of Italy was maybe 60% of Pro level teams were pushing salaries to dodgy schemes like the one Ferrari was running. Tax evasion and doping COMBINED. Yet Blackcat and Ozzie thought back in 2009 it would be pointless. As I said, you can't hide anything today. If you were forced to verify the stuff that the drugs are bought with, aka income sources and destinations, then you'd catch A LOT OF GUYS. At a minimum people like Scarponi would not have been able to forward all their earning to Ferrari and his ponzy scheme because a control system would have spotted it. At a minimum it would make it harder for people to do dodgy stuff.

It's also funny reading Ozzie's comments about accounting firms. Arthur Anderson...hahahaha. So funny, even for 2009. The Enron DREAM. You should watch the movie about them...'Smartest Guys in The Room.' Has a lot of parallels with the UCI and cycling bodies. It's not about dodgy people evading the system, it's about empowering more people with knowledge of how and why people do dodgy things. More people understand the thinking, the system and methodology, the more people will call BS. Hence why I linked the media into that comment back in 2009. They are all linked. A dodgy person can still do dodgy things but if an upstanding individual who knows why that behaviour is wrong and can spot it, the chances of it being called out go up. Knowledge really is power. A lot of CONI's work involves financial accounting and auditing. The system has to monitor the $$$ because that is the prime motivator for doping and what pays for it.
ought to give up on your enthusiasm for the accounting profession. and it should be emphasised you work for an auditor, you do not come to the position without any interest.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY