The UCI & WADA

[Izoard]

Well hi all,

After reading a number of posts where some have stated the focus should not be on the riders, but the UCI and/or WADA. So, I thought they needed their own post! (note - I did a quick search and it appears this has not been done yet)

Now, before I get attacked for putting this in the clinic, I figured a number of comments would be about doping, and how these organizations do or don't do a good job. But we don't have to limit our conversation to just doping.

I'll get things started ...

2 things that make me crazy about the UCI.

1. TT bike set up : Many of these are total crap! Saddle at least 5 cm behind the BB? If you ride a longer saddle (Arione), this might be difficult on your normal road bike. Level saddle? Do they mean front to back, front, or back? Anyone who has had even one argument with an official right before a start can understand what I mean.

2. Only the small(er) fish: as many have said, it seems to be mainly the small fish (OK, and the medium fish) who are getting caught out doping. So the ones who make the most money at this are just that talented, while the lesser riders (at least in terms of pay and exposure) are paying for all those fabulous drugs? Stretches one's common sense a bit, no?

Have at 'er (and not at me)

 

[Bala Verde]

As I posted in another thread (retroactive testing) into greater detail:

According to the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, we can expect a storm in Autumn, as it is reported that 2008 TdF samples of (the) top (15) cyclists will be (re)tested for CERA, with the latest and most accurate test available.

The scapegoating/ smaller fish idea is also mentioned, by Schumacher's lawyer.

Hopefully these retroactive tests will show that they (Bordry) are intent on catching dopers, not only the ones that are big enough for PR/ and to support the 'few rotten apples' myth but small enough for it to not diminsh the importance of cycling.

 

[Izoard]

As I posted in another thread (retroactive testing) into greater detail:

According to the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, we can expect a storm in Autumn, as it is reported that 2008 TdF samples of (the) top (15) cyclists will be (re)tested for CERA, with the latest and most accurate test available.

The scapegoating/ smaller fish idea is also mentioned, by Schumacher's lawyer.

Hopefully these retroactive tests will show that they (Bordry) are intent on catching dopers, not only the ones that are big enough for PR/ and to support the 'few rotten apples' myth but small enough for it to not diminsh the importance of cycling.

Thanks Bala! I read through that thread ... do you think this is more the UCI pushing for retro testing, or AFLD? I get the feeling that it is more the AFLD, but would really be interested in other opinions on it.

 

[joe_papp]

The UCI may have been a problem in the past, with (according to my reliable source) their supposedly having specified which biopassports could be analyzed for possible doping and which were off-limits. Note: I say "may have" and "supposedly" and no, I won't name my source.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am one of those who is very critical of the UCI as an organisation. However I feel the need to say that there are many good genuine people within the ranks of the UCI who are passionate about the sport and want to clean it up.

The problem with the UCI as an organisation is that it is a very political setup - as with all such systems very often the major concern is to retain power and portray a positive image as opposed to making the tough decisions.

PMcQ made thisstatement in October last year saying that 4 year suspensions would be introduced in 2009.
So far it hasn't happened - is it just another PR exercise?

I think the bio-passport is a great resource but is being under utilized - it is now a fancy indicator to help target suspicious riders as opposed to its original purpose of catching the cheats.

If the UCI - as well as every sporting authority - wish to regain trust and credibility then the anti-doping needs to be handed over to WADA.
Then there can be no conflict of interest.

 

[Bala Verde]

Thanks Bala! I read through that thread ... do you think this is more the UCI pushing for retro testing, or AFLD? I get the feeling that it is more the AFLD, but would really be interested in other opinions on it.

I didn't completely reread the German paper, but I think I remember the AFLD doing this retroactive testing, because they 'own' the samples. They were in control of testing in 2008, so that's why they have the samples I guess.

It is also hypothesised that AFLD is motivated to 'get even' with UCI, for not having been involved as much in this year's testing as they would have wanted, and the 'regress'/'laxness' they have witnessed.

Die UCI, assistiert von der Veranstalterorganisation A.S.O., hatte bei der Tour alles zurück auf Anfang gedreht - hat diese Restauration den Zorn des kaltgestellten Bordry so entflammt, dass er nun zurückschlägt?

 

[Arnout]

This is what indeed is worrying me about the organizations which rule over cycling. I mean, it is an intransparant bureacracy at the top. Every organization wants to be in charge of the whole thing, the UCI wants to do the testing, the AFLD, the WADA has a hand in it, and the national organizations have to decide about everything. But when they make an improper decision the UCI again wants the power to correct that. Every organization wants the last word, and because of that they are all hurrying for the latest tests and ideas and using them on cyclists before they are properly tested on mouses or something. That can never be good for the riders who have to undergo this war for power by having to follow the strangest tests and regulations of all organizations. And when the ocassional rider who is not doped is caught noone cares because at least we have the latest tests. I think it is a very bad situation at the top.

And I do agree on the fact that some, maybe most people in the organizations care about cycling. But some also care more about power and produce very stupid quotes all the time. That's why I lost my confidence in the system long ago. I have more confidence in the riders at the moment, because I see so many races which are so boring that noone possibly is doped...

 

[Cobber]

I am one of those who is very critical of the UCI as an organisation. However I feel the need to say that there are many good genuine people within the ranks of the UCI who are passionate about the sport and want to clean it up.

The problem with the UCI as an organisation is that it is a very political setup - as with all such systems very often the major concern is to retain power and portray a positive image as opposed to making the tough decisions.

PMcQ made thisstatement in October last year saying that 4 year suspensions would be introduced in 2009.
So far it hasn't happened - is it just another PR exercise?

I think the bio-passport is a great resource but is being under utilized - it is now a fancy indicator to help target suspicious riders as opposed to its original purpose of catching the cheats.

If the UCI - as well as every sporting authority - wish to regain trust and credibility then the anti-doping needs to be handed over to WADA.
Then there can be no conflict of interest.

+1......... I think this pretty much sums up the problem with anti-doping testing in cycling. The WADA should have complete control over testing, including the selection riders for tests in and out of competition, storage of samples for future retroactive testing, and reporting of results. having the UCI in charge of this is the equivalent of having AGI in charge of Wall St regulation....

 

[elapid]

I am one of those who is very critical of the UCI as an organisation. However I feel the need to say that there are many good genuine people within the ranks of the UCI who are passionate about the sport and want to clean it up.

The problem with the UCI as an organisation is that it is a very political setup - as with all such systems very often the major concern is to retain power and portray a positive image as opposed to making the tough decisions.

PMcQ made thisstatement in October last year saying that 4 year suspensions would be introduced in 2009.
So far it hasn't happened - is it just another PR exercise?

I think the bio-passport is a great resource but is being under utilized - it is now a fancy indicator to help target suspicious riders as opposed to its original purpose of catching the cheats.

If the UCI - as well as every sporting authority - wish to regain trust and credibility then the anti-doping needs to be handed over to WADA.
Then there can be no conflict of interest.

+1 also. I have long been critical of the UCI for many reasons, including their attitude towards doping, drug tests, ProTour debacle, Unibet fiasco, UCI v GT organizers standoff, accepting money from riders for drug testing equipment, etc. They are too political and power hungry as an organization. And definitely agree with Dr. Maserati and Cobber - the UCI cannot act as both the regulator and the policer for doping. It is a conflict of interest and there are no checks in place to prevent abuse of the system.

 

[BigBoat]

The UCI may have been a problem in the past, with (according to my reliable source) their supposedly having specified which biopassports could be analyzed for possible doping and which were off-limits. Note: I say "may have" and "supposedly" and no, I won't name my source.

This is HUGE.

 

[BigBoat]

Robo had dumped Flecha. I wonder if he'll test positive now. lol