• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams want independent investigation of UCI

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 2, 2012
191
0
0
Visit site
jackwolf said:
"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.

Tsssk, it all depends on where in the thread it was written.
 
Jul 29, 2009
175
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
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.

I agree. Tygart is a very smart cookie. I am very impressed about this man. He will go a long way. Outsmarting Armstrong and UCI - that's impressive.
 
mutschi said:
I agree. Tygart is a very smart cookie. I am very impressed about this man. He will go a long way. Outsmarting Armstrong and UCI - that's impressive.

Nah. The UCI are doing what they do best. Nothing. They'll just keep doing nothing. And nothing will happen. The media can jump up and down all they want. The UCI only answers to the UCI.

Put simply. They don't give a f-ck.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Visit site
Mrs John Murphy said:
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.

But a better public perception can be achieved in more that one way. Why assume better perception means better lies? Better public perception could also be achieved through increased transparency and more effective antodoping measures.

It's inevitable that the PR arena will be the battlefield of antidoping vs antodoping-scandal. There is no other way for most anti-doping people to fight the UCI. It makes more sense to me to consider the effect of the PR moves, rather have a knee-jerk reaction to spin.
 
131313 said:
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.

This, totally.

With regards to Vaughters and Garmin - my take on the Lowe thing was that Vaughters initialled a piece of paper without really looking at it, then months later when Lowe was sorta blackmailing he was like 'oh crap, Whitey what did you do' and basically had to fire him, based on White's contravention of team policy and Vaughters' own embarrassing oversight. So I don't see that a viewpoint that gives White a place in the sport as necessarily hypocritical or incongruent with Garmin's own stance. I also don't think that ex-dopers don't have a place in moving the sport forward; I think that honest people who want to run a transparent business can move the sport forward.

And with regards to Vaughters, Millar and the UCI - as a thought experiment, I want to put myself in their shoes, assuming that they are not lying and just wallpapering the same dirty wall (if they are, we're all screwed anyway as cycling fans). If I'm a pragmatist and a reformist, I have to recognize that now is a good point to make a move, strike while the iron is hot, but also recognize that there's only so far it can be taken. Verbruggen is a safe target with so much heat on the time of his reign, but to be allowed to make that kind of harsh-sounding criticism, they have to get in bed with McQuaid a bit, to butter him up by trying to make him see that the most profitable way forward is to actually have a clean sport, that cycling can't afford the doping scandals and uncertainty that come from a culture of lying and covering up, that sponsors will leave like Rabobank and like Lance's personal sponsors, and oh, by the way, teams can't keep playing the pea-and-shell financial game that we all have a stake in, and so maybe we should start talking about sharing TV revenues. We have the same interests at heart, you know Pat? An independent anti-doping panel will do wonders for the image of cycling, because journalists will keep asking uncomfortable questions... etc, etc. That is what I'd be telling McQuaid.

Listen, I'm not a big believer in reformism at heart, I'm more of a fan of radical change as a way of tossing out corrupt and weak systems. I see that sentiment expressed here a lot, and so I get the anger and criticism that any moves that are made don't go far enough, that they get in bed with bad people, etc. If Vaughters et al are lying through their teeth and taking us for a ride, that is one thing, but if they're really committed to what they seem to be committed to, I can see why they're doing it in the way that they're doing it. Pat McQuaid has a tendency to put the shields up as soon as any criticism is put forth, he acts like he's trapped in a corner. He's not going anywhere, it's a reality that he's not going to be removed by petitions or asking or harsh words. But if he feels like he's trapped in a corner, it's possible he can be led by the nose to a place that he feels could be profitable (as John Murphy says, money talks), and if he's convinced that being actually committed to anti-doping is a way forward, then the sport can at least have some credibility.

I guess the remaining question is whether or not you believe this is what Vaughters et al are trying to do. Personally, I can't see how an independent commission is anything other than trying to do just that.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Visit site
Nice post skidmark.

Many of us want a radical solution, but that's not going to happen in a global organisation with dysfunctional accountability mechanisms. The best we can hope for is incremental improvement. The AIGCP resolution would never have happened without the team's self interest in retaining fans. It's a nice example of how the self interest of people with limited integrity can be exploited to bring about improvement. The system is so fvcked up, selectively exploiting self interest is probably the only strategy that will work.

I still believe that a petition is one of the few ways that lots of fans can simultaneously exert pressure. The UCI won't change if the fans ask. But they might change a bit if the sponsors and teams say, look at this petition, the fans really aren't happy, the sport is going to lose out if it doesn't change. AIGCP has got the message that the fans aren't happy and won't beleive the BS this time. The UCI and Feds need to get the message too, or the efforts of everyone from Tyler to Tygart will be wasted.

Pat's position is not at all secure IMO. If the National Feds understood how disgusted ordinary club riders are with what has happened, they would look for a well fattened scapegoat.
 
skidmark said:
This, totally.

With regards to Vaughters and Garmin - my take on the Lowe thing was that Vaughters initialled a piece of paper without really looking at it, then months later when Lowe was sorta blackmailing he was like 'oh crap, Whitey what did you do' and basically had to fire him, based on White's contravention of team policy and Vaughters' own embarrassing oversight. So I don't see that a viewpoint that gives White a place in the sport as necessarily hypocritical or incongruent with Garmin's own stance. I also don't think that ex-dopers don't have a place in moving the sport forward; I think that honest people who want to run a transparent business can move the sport forward.

And with regards to Vaughters, Millar and the UCI - as a thought experiment, I want to put myself in their shoes, assuming that they are not lying and just wallpapering the same dirty wall (if they are, we're all screwed anyway as cycling fans). If I'm a pragmatist and a reformist, I have to recognize that now is a good point to make a move, strike while the iron is hot, but also recognize that there's only so far it can be taken. Verbruggen is a safe target with so much heat on the time of his reign, but to be allowed to make that kind of harsh-sounding criticism, they have to get in bed with McQuaid a bit, to butter him up by trying to make him see that the most profitable way forward is to actually have a clean sport, that cycling can't afford the doping scandals and uncertainty that come from a culture of lying and covering up, that sponsors will leave like Rabobank and like Lance's personal sponsors, and oh, by the way, teams can't keep playing the pea-and-shell financial game that we all have a stake in, and so maybe we should start talking about sharing TV revenues. We have the same interests at heart, you know Pat? An independent anti-doping panel will do wonders for the image of cycling, because journalists will keep asking uncomfortable questions... etc, etc. That is what I'd be telling McQuaid.

Listen, I'm not a big believer in reformism at heart, I'm more of a fan of radical change as a way of tossing out corrupt and weak systems. I see that sentiment expressed here a lot, and so I get the anger and criticism that any moves that are made don't go far enough, that they get in bed with bad people, etc. If Vaughters et al are lying through their teeth and taking us for a ride, that is one thing, but if they're really committed to what they seem to be committed to, I can see why they're doing it in the way that they're doing it. Pat McQuaid has a tendency to put the shields up as soon as any criticism is put forth, he acts like he's trapped in a corner. He's not going anywhere, it's a reality that he's not going to be removed by petitions or asking or harsh words. But if he feels like he's trapped in a corner, it's possible he can be led by the nose to a place that he feels could be profitable (as John Murphy says, money talks), and if he's convinced that being actually committed to anti-doping is a way forward, then the sport can at least have some credibility.

I guess the remaining question is whether or not you believe this is what Vaughters et al are trying to do. Personally, I can't see how an independent commission is anything other than trying to do just that.

USADA, Tygart and WADA seem to be the logical choice?

Tygart for non-UCI independent organization lead!

A new union for riders rights, UCI (renamed. for promotion only) + T & A i.e. Tygart and Ashenden for Doping Control?

A trifecta of goodness.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Lukenwolf said:
How exactly do they plan to get Astana and Euskatel into that agreement :eek: Saxobank and Radioskank would run a sizable risk, too :eek:

Seriously.

You've painted 4 teams here that were smahed in the Giro by team clean, while being smashed in all other tours bar the Vuelta by team clean Sky.

I do agree those teams would appear to be dodgy from past behaviours and even results, but now?

I really do not understand how these teams can be singled out when they have had woeful seasons compared to Sky and ordinary seasons compared to Garmin who are running on a shoestring budget.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Lukenwolf said:
How exactly do they plan to get Astana and Euskatel into that agreement :eek: Saxobank and Radioskank would run a sizable risk, too :eek:

To wit:

(Accepted dodgy teams in red)
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/cqRankingTeam.asp?year=2012
1. [Gbr] Sky Professional Cycling Team PRT 15062
2. [Rus] Katusha Team PRT 11528
3. [Bel] OmegaPharma - Quick Step PRT 11445
4. [Esp] Movistar Team PRT 9980
5. [Lux] Radioshack - Nissan PRT 9673
6. [Ita] Liquigas - Cannondale PRT 9373
7. [Usa] BMC Racing Team PRT 9050
8. [Usa] Team Garmin - Sharp PRT 8842
9. [Ned] Rabobank PRT 8090
10. [Kaz] Astana PRT 8002
16. [Den] Team Saxo Bank - Tinkoff Bank PRT 5948
20. [Esp] Euskaltel - Euskadi PRT 4680


Clean team Sky has 50% more PT points than second placed Katusha. JRod generated > 3000 of those, I believe.
Clean team Garmin are placed higher by 10% than both Astana and Rabobank.
Sky is approxmately twice the team Rabobank or Astana are.
Garmin are within 10% of the higher placed Radioshack - the only one of the 4 known dodgy teams above clean team Garmin.

Why do we need to do investigate anything? Because Garmin want to be in second place behind Sky?

2011 team budgets:

team-budgets.jpg


Leading to 2011 points:

1. [Gbr] Sky Professional Cycling Team PRT 10606
2. [Usa] HTC - Highroad PRT 9820
3. [Lux] Leopard - Trek PRT 9712
4. [Usa] Team Garmin - Cervélo PRT 9407
5. [Ned] Rabobank PRT 8815
6. [Ned] Vacansoleil - DCM PRT 8677
7. [Usa] Team RadioShack PRT 8617
8. [Bel] OmegaPharma - Lotto PRT 8289
9. [Ita] Liquigas - Cannondale PRT 8086
10. [Rus] Katusha Team PRT 7620

2011-2012
Clean team Sky have jumped 50%.
Clean team Garmin have dropped some (6.5%).
 
Jun 26, 2012
253
0
0
Visit site
D-Queued said:
Me too. I have been optimistic for years and years that Armstrong would be found out.

Optimism can be really, really lonely.

Remember when you couldn't even whisper that Lance was doping?

Dave.
Yep I do :D

Now all good things come in 3s so if my optimism for Livewrong is outed as a shame and Cadel is proven clean then I'm the happiest fan in cycling :D
 
Jun 26, 2012
253
0
0
Visit site
131313 said:
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.
Couldn't agree more - getting rid of one man is nothing more than a PR stunt

Needs to be a whole board shift - that way we can see an attitude adjustment for the UCI
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
Remember Vaughters wants to set up a new league with Bruyneel!

As much as I may have stroked JV here (in regards to him being a public figure to question and possibly beat on), I still have serious questions.

His aliance with Hog is a big one. I mean a BIG one. Sure the guy's got influence and power, but how closely do you want to get to the pure evil?

JV, help me out or I start goint sideways...
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Visit site
TubularBills said:
A new union for riders rights, UCI (renamed. for promotion only) + T & A i.e. Tygart and Ashenden for Doping Control?

A trifecta of goodness.

I think this is the basic formula indeed:
Strong riders representation
UCI focused on event execution and sports promotion
Independent doping agency with full responsibility

And if Pat's replacement were supportive you could see all this in place within 9 months, at the end of 2013. It needs an assertive change manager to put in place, then new UCI elections/leadership to follow through.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Visit site
AussieEdge said:
Couldn't agree more - getting rid of one man is nothing more than a PR stunt

Needs to be a whole board shift - that way we can see an attitude adjustment for the UCI

The blamed (not blameworthy) single person is known as the sacrificial lamb or scapegoat.

Biblical in origin so may be foreign to those in the UCI who worshipped LA as cycling's messiah and only deity.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Visit site
I Watch Cycling In July said:
I still believe that a petition is one of the few ways that lots of fans can simultaneously exert pressure. The UCI won't change if the fans ask. But they might change a bit if the sponsors and teams say, look at this petition, the fans really aren't happy, the sport is going to lose out if it doesn't change. AIGCP has got the message that the fans aren't happy and won't beleive the BS this time. The UCI and Feds need to get the message too, or the efforts of everyone from Tyler to Tygart will be wasted.

Pat's position is not at all secure IMO. If the National Feds understood how disgusted ordinary club riders are with what has happened, they would look for a well fattened scapegoat.

Agreed. USADA was successful because the reasoned decision went public very quickly, via the web, fan forums, social media and main stream media. And Tygart delayed it twice further building media interest and anticipation. And Tyler's book was also perfect timing. UCI had nowhere to go.

GEtting a change in UCI leadership AND a change in UCI ways of working will be the same. It needs fans and media to demand the change. And the riders to be supportive, but we cannot expect too much from the riders in my opinion. If they come out strongly, then fantastic, but we can't rely on that.

The media is primed now, they want to run with this story for as long as they can milk it, with different angles. From Lance, to UCI, to Ferrari (and UCI), Kimmage (and UCI), etc etc. It will keep building pressure on UCI. And yes there are no active racing distractions. The other reason the media is interested in the sports management side is that they realize there is a MUCH LARGER prize here. Sports management in general. FIFA, IOC! And this case is a beach head to busting the management of sport period.

The Australia media case is interesting. The media there were more aggressive on the LA story and the associated criticism of cycling administration. The story went harder there than anywhere else (IMO). No doubt helped by the GreenEdge White resignation and the Tour Down Under political saga. But as a result of that public coverage the minister of sports is now involved AND Turtur/Mueller falling over themselves with panic, initially heavily criticizing UCI leadership.

Personally I think the continuing fall out we will see over the next 3-6 months with all that is still to come will take care of a change in UCI leadership AND the way they work. We're only at the beginning, say 30% into this. At some time WADA will get more vocal still. Hopefullly the riders will. Sponsors are not stupid, once the public associates the sport with doping AND cheating they will go. Rabo left because the impending bad news is at high risk of damaging the brand. Same reason as Nike and co. All sponsors will be deliberating carefully right now. You'd be mad to continue investing in a tainted sport. Sports marketeers are already on record saying sponsors are mad to support cycling.

And at some time IOC will start to get involved. The biggest short term risk is that UCI pulls the Kimmage trial, as that will be a win/win for the case for change whichever way the case goes. Public perception is fair and square against believing anything UCI says now, so they cant win the hearts and minds of the cycling fans & media either way. Pulling the case is their best option and leaves a vacuum. Unless someone/or the fans of the sport start a case against UCI for mismanagement of the sport, or similar.

The future is bright, IMHO. And change will come. Look how quickly Lance went. In just over a week it was all over. UCI will be the same.
 
I Watch Cycling In July said:
But a better public perception can be achieved in more that one way. Why assume better perception means better lies? Better public perception could also be achieved through increased transparency and more effective antodoping measures.

It's inevitable that the PR arena will be the battlefield of antidoping vs antodoping-scandal. There is no other way for most anti-doping people to fight the UCI. It makes more sense to me to consider the effect of the PR moves, rather have a knee-jerk reaction to spin.

IMO teams view the best response to bad publicity as being to sweep it under the carpet.

This was the response in 1999, 2006, 2008. Everyone has their established talking points - big up the biopassport (which has caught only a handful of people with no evidence of cleaning up the sport). If you are Frodo then you ***** about what a victim cycling is.

This is a sport that argues that no positive tests = cleaner peloton.

The view is framed by a short term approach to PR. Armstrong is a case in point - if the UCI had popped him in 99 for cortisoids he'd be a footnote in history. As it is those in charge decided to accept the backdated TUE and we've ended up in the mess we are in now.

JV and others seem to argue that perception - ie the appearance of anti-doping is more important than real anti-doping. So it is better to talk of the biopassport, etc than it is to bust dopers etc

In my view - perception is shaped by reality - if you are anti-doping then you are properly anti-doping which means busting dopers and getting rid of them and their enablers from the sport.

JV likes to present himself as a radical but he is very very conservative (with a small c) when it comes to anti-doping.
 
Jul 13, 2012
263
0
0
Visit site
Mrs John Murphy said:
JV and others seem to argue that perception - ie the appearance of anti-doping is more important than real anti-doping. So it is better to talk of the biopassport, etc than it is to bust dopers etc

In my view - perception is shaped by reality - if you are anti-doping then you are properly anti-doping which means busting dopers and getting rid of them and their enablers from the sport.

JV likes to present himself as a radical but he is very very conservative (with a small c) when it comes to anti-doping.

Great post, goes straight to the heart of the various issues flying around.

Currently UCI regulated Bio-Passports permit exactly what you highlight 'the appearance of anti-doping measures'. By allowing it be internally controlled even if more team involvement happens, the same problems stay within the sports closed circle.

Ashendens comments regarding having the top 20 or so GT riders chaperoned has stuck out for me recently, if I saw this being independantly managed then allied to bio figures being released I'd maybe start to believe again.....
 
Oct 16, 2012
75
0
0
Visit site
I Watch Cycling In July said:
If the National Feds understood how disgusted ordinary club riders are with what has happened, they would look for a well fattened scapegoat.

They do understand. I mean, if you want to keep such a well-paid job, you pay attention to everything.

But on this I join the pessismistic party: they will only move as far as they have the benefit of it, by sacking Pat and replacing him with on of their princes.

The German Federation for example is headed by a discarded politician. In the end nobody wanted to have him in whatever position, but he was good enough to replace Sylvia Schenk. Nobody wants to see such a sucker as part of the UCI board. And in their publications, the German federation guys years ago started to complain about critical voices who still wanted to discuss doping issues. They have a strong "move on" position there.

So, no help from Nationals.
 

TRENDING THREADS