Teams want independent investigation of UCI

[luckyboy]

Ugh

Can I listen to this online?

You can watch here - http://www.vipboxsports.eu/watch/1267/1/www.vipbox.tv/watch/28637/1/magic-tv-live-stream-online.html

It was coming "shortly" nearly an hour ago according to https://twitter.com/SkySportsLia so I don't know how much longer the wait will be.

 

[Buttermilkbiscuit]

You can watch here - http://www.vipboxsports.eu/watch/1267/1/www.vipbox.tv/watch/28637/1/magic-tv-live-stream-online.html

It was coming "shortly" nearly an hour ago according to https://twitter.com/SkySportsLia so I don't know how much longer the wait will be.

Thank you very much!

 

[Cyivel]

JV is going to get lost in the champions league coverage if he doesn't get a move on.

 

[hrotha]

hahaha. you and your fairytales

Hey, if it isn't Mr Cycling-Has-Been-99%-Clean-For-Years, aka The-Ferrari-Thing-Has-Nothing-To-Do-With-Doping. And I'm the one telling fairytales...

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

You don't think after years of being sold lies by those in charge it is reasonable to be sceptical of the motives of people involved in cycling?

No wonder the sport is so ****ed with morons like you willing to accept the party line of the day blindly.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

You don't think after years of being sold lies by those in charge it is reasonable to be sceptical of the motives of people involved in cycling?

No wonder the sport is so ****ed with morons like you willing to accept the party line of the day blindly.

just look at how slow and pathetic riders right nowadays. whatever they use it has little or no effect. it goes beyond me if you don't see that.

besides I've been right everytime regarding history of (team)doping csc, us epostal, kelme, euskaltel(until june 2004). team don't organise doping anymore. you can come back once I'm proven wrong and I will admitt without problems I was wrong.

 

[IFRider]

First Mig, Jalabert and now "We're all clean, we just have an image problem courtesy the UCI"

Who's saying that?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[131313]

You don't think after years of being sold lies by those in charge it is reasonable to be sceptical of the motives of people involved in cycling?

No wonder the sport is so ****ed with morons like you willing to accept the party line of the day blindly.

Well, I said I understand cynicism...but blind cynicism isn't much difference than blind faith. Obviously, whoever are selected as the "independent observers" have to be looked at critically, but this seems like the best course of action. I asked if you had a better idea, you responded with name-calling... I understand and actually appreciate your anger...really, I mean that...I'm glad people still care about clean sport. But what do you suggest as a better plan? Getting an independent panel of people outside of the sport to look at the structure of the sport seems like a good start to me, whether it's "the party line" or not.

 

[Benotti69]

Hey, if it isn't Mr Cycling-Has-Been-99%-Clean-For-Years, aka The-Ferrari-Thing-Has-Nothing-To-Do-With-Doping. And I'm the one telling fairytales...

Hazuki is only in here for the bigger viewing figures.

 

[skidmark]

Is the mutiny really about wanting clean cycling or cynical opportunism by teams who want to enrich themselves. Remember Vaughters Garmin friendly proposals for cycling - lots of TTTs and helmet cameras.

Replacing one bunch of self-serving showponies with another bunch of self-serving showponies is not progress.

I would agree that it's not progress if the self-serving showponies coming in to replace the previous ones are also aiding the coverup of doping. That's the real issue for me here. Regardless of how we might feel differently about how Vaughters runs his team, I really don't see how calling for an independent doping investigation serves the interest of covering up anything.

You're gonna get self-serving people at the top level in any governing body - that is how it generally works. If the new self-serving buffoons run a cleaner sport than the old ones, I'm all for it.

 

[luckyboy]

Well, that interview isn't gonna be on Sky Sports News. ****'s sake

 

[IFRider]

Regardless of how we might feel differently about how Vaughters runs his team, I really don't see how calling for an independent doping investigation serves the interest of covering up anything.

I agree completely. We need this to happen. It's a more powerful proposition than "my team have all signed this pledge so I know they're clean"

 

[BroDeal]

The funny thing about this whole Armstrong explosion and the blast wave spreading through the sport is the timing. With the season over, there is little else for the fans to discuss and cycling press to report. That guarantees a lot more damage will be done than if it had happened six months ago.

There is a decent chance this thing could snowball.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Well, I said I understand cynicism...but blind cynicism isn't much difference than blind faith. Obviously, whoever are selected as the "independent observers" have to be looked at critically, but this seems like the best course of action. I asked if you had a better idea, you responded with name-calling... I understand and actually appreciate your anger...really, I mean that...I'm glad people still care about clean sport. But what do you suggest as a better plan? Getting an independent panel of people outside of the sport to look at the structure of the sport seems like a good start to me, whether it's "the party line" or not.

Apologies. I missed your post. That response was to Ryo.

My point is that everytime we've had a crisis in cycling there has been such desperation to 'move on' and to declare the new 'clean era' without any major structural change. Everyone was willing to accept 1999 as a new era, 2006 was a new era, anti-doping experts on your team was the new thing in 2008, the biopassport was supposed to be the next big step. All of which has been moving the deckchairs on the titanic.

Everytime, these were 'media moves' - designed to create the veneer of a new era, when in fact nothing changed underneath - we still had the same rotten system from top to bottom, the same rotten corrupt national federations, the same rotten, corrupt teams, dirty DS's like Riis and Hog.

For example Vaughters criticised CA for getting rid of White and Hodges, now I have to ask - what does he think that White, who only went when he was pushed, still has to offer the sport? Why does Vaughters even want these people involved in the sport?

When Vaughters calls for change - is he really calling for deep structural change of the sport, or is this another 'media move' to make everyone thing things have changed while nothing changes?

Getting rid of McQuaid is like giving Ricco a 25 year ban - it doesn't change anything - the rotten feds remain, the dirty teams and riders remain, the dirty doctors and ds's remain (and it seems Vaughters doesn't even want them gone).

 

[IFRider]

My point is that everytime we've had a crisis in cycling there has been such desperation to 'move on' and to declare the new 'clean era' without any major structural change.

In this case there seems to have been a specific stated intention to go back over the past doping practices. That's better than "draw a line and move on", which I completely agree has been tried over and over again

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>

Getting rid of McQuaid is like giving Ricco a 25 year ban - it doesn't change anything - the rotten feds remain, the dirty teams and riders remain, the dirty doctors and ds's remain (and it seems Vaughters doesn't even want them gone).

Remember Vaughters wants to set up a new league with Bruyneel!

 

[Don Quixote]

Who's saying that?

I did. From Matt Slaters tweets OP:

The teams want an independant body to examine the UCIs anti-doping record. The teams have moved on, but the perception hasn't.

Ie. the focus in cycling is being drawn back to previous eras because the UCI failed to deal with doping correctly at the time.

This is creating an image problem, rather than indicating a doping problem.

ergo "We're all clean, we just have an image problem courtesy the UCI"

Did I understand it wrong?

Edit: If I believed the main problem facing cycling was a perception of doping, rather than doping itself I would applaud the actions. But I don't.

 

[131313]

Apologies. I missed your post. That response was to Ryo.

My point is that everytime we've had a crisis in cycling there has been such desperation to 'move on' and to declare the new 'clean era' without any major structural change. Everyone was willing to accept 1999 as a new era, 2006 was a new era, anti-doping experts on your team was the new thing in 2008, the biopassport was supposed to be the next big step. All of which has been moving the deckchairs on the titanic.

Everytime, these were 'media moves' - designed to create the veneer of a new era, when in fact nothing changed underneath - we still had the same rotten system from top to bottom, the same rotten corrupt national federations, the same rotten, corrupt teams, dirty DS's like Riis and Hog.

For example Vaughters criticised CA for getting rid of White and Hodges, now I have to ask - what does he think that White, who only went when he was pushed, still has to offer the sport? Why does Vaughters even want these people involved in the sport?

When Vaughters calls for change - is he really calling for deep structural change of the sport, or is this another 'media move' to make everyone thing things have changed while nothing changes?

Getting rid of McQuaid is like giving Ricco a 25 year ban - it doesn't change anything - the rotten feds remain, the dirty teams and riders remain, the dirty doctors and ds's remain (and it seems Vaughters doesn't even want them gone).

no problem, I actually assumed it was directed there...

As far as White, I actually kinda agree with Vaughters (sorta). It's not necessarily that I think he has a ton to offer the sport. I don't know. I know the riders on Garmin liked him a lot more than Vaughters and the ones I know all claimed he was straight shooter WRT doping, and they all to a man took him at his work on the T Lowe thing...but, I also know it looks sketchy. Thing is, firing White seems to be strictly an "appearance" thing. "Look, we got rid of the evil doper". Maybe they'll hire O'Grady, who had a successful career in the '90's riding clean...

I agree, getting rid of McQuaid alone does little/nothing. The issue seems to be much larger, mainly how the UCI board is elected, the gross concentration of power, and how doping control and management is handled by the federations. This is the big thing which needs to change: people can't be both promoting and policing the sport. Bringing in a truly independent group outside of cycling seems to be the best thing. Vaughters isn't calling for McQuaid to step down, he's asking for an independent review of the situation. Personally, I agree that's the way to go.

 

[badboygolf16v]

Remember Vaughters wants to set up a new league with Bruyneel!

I hear he recommended Emile Vrijman to chair the panel.

Seriously though, I can't see anything to criticise in Vaughter's statement.

 

[Sarcastic Wet Trout]

Remember Vaughters wants to set up a new league with Bruyneel!

Remember the Alamo!

 

[the asian]

I'm sceptical about pro teams working seriously for total transparency when so many of them are dirty. I don't see Astana cooperating closely with FDJ for example.

I wonder if many of these teams will even exist after the Ferrari Investigation concludes.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Money talks

The only thing that will make cycling really crack down/reform is when sponsors start to pull out en masse.

Which is why comments about the 'perception' seem to suggest that its not about getting rid of dopers but having better PR.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

'....' I know the riders on Garmin liked him a lot more than Vaughters and the ones I know all claimed he was straight shooter WRT doping, and they all to a man took him at his work on the T Lowe thing...but, I also know it looks sketchy. Thing is, firing White seems to be strictly an "appearance" thing. "Look, we got rid of the evil doper".'...'

Interesting that the Garmin riders believed White. I'm guessing the firing itself was just an appearance of firing. White seemed to be poaching riders for greenedge the previous season. My guess is that JV told him, OK you can get out of your contract with us and go work on your greenedge project, provided you take the PR rap for the del moral incident and stop nicking my riders. A win-win business deal. JMO

I agree, getting rid of McQuaid alone does little/nothing. The issue seems to be much larger, mainly how the UCI board is elected, the gross concentration of power, and how doping control and management is handled by the federations. This is the big thing which needs to change: people can't be both promoting and policing the sport. Bringing in a truly independent group outside of cycling seems to be the best thing. Vaughters isn't calling for McQuaid to step down, he's asking for an independent review of the situation. Personally, I agree that's the way to go.

Those are definitely the systemic problems. A truly independent and competent review would highlight those systemic problems though, so I also think an independent review would be a constructive step. Certainly, if AIGCP asks for a review, and the management committee refuses, it creates an opportunity for some more tough questions and bad publicity.

 

[jackwolf]

Pat shut this down.

"Pat shut this down." That's past tense. "Did he really shut it down?"
"Pat, shut this down." That's an imperative. "I will if I can be bothered."

Punctuation is important. It took me a bit to figure out what you meant.