Truth and Reconciliation Commission for pro cycling

[Maxiton]

Why a Truth and Reconciliation Process Won’t Work

Or so says the INRNG blog, anyway. What do you think?

 

[B_Ugli]

The difficulty is that we have been led to believe by Professional Cycling that it is getting cleaner with bio passports, stricter testing and more realistic performances. I heard Roger Hammond saying as much on TV the other night.

The flipside is snapshots of info we get from chaps like Ashenden (re the passport), physiologists stating that power outputs of Sky riders is no different to 1997 levels of Festina guys, and the backdrop to the LA and Contador cases. When non cyclists ask me for my take on the LA case they are genuinely shocked when you explain to them what blood doping is.

From a fans point of view which version to you believe? Its very difficult to reconcile in your mind. On the one hand you had the likes of Cavendish sitting shoulder to shoulder with McQuaid at the Passport unveling and on the other guys like Valverde coming back (post ban) to a level way above anything he had done before.

I think the first thing they should do is remove all drug testing from the UCI.

 

[ebandit]

forwards

even if we have wholesale change in personnel at uci..........what will change?

cycling needs greater accountability by guilty teams and greater rewards for clean riding

it has been argued earlier but where riders are the only personnel penalised
there are always other riders to take over

those in charge of teams should be penalised also unless it can be proven that doped riders acted independantly

sponsors need to know that involvment with doped riders is bad for business
in a world where sanctioned riders are still feted by the masses what hope do we have for real change?

 

[87'Start]

An open letter to the David Brailsford and Bradley Wiggins

I think it comes down to the powerful teams managers and riders taking the initiative to speak out. I don't have a twitter account but people who do could tweet Bradley Wiggins and Dave Brailsford with this link, who knows they may provide us with some thoughts:

Dear David and Bradley
Congratulations on a wonderful season. Given the performances by Team Sky over the best part of the season, and the performance of Team GB at the olympics I think it is safe to say that you have both become figureheads for the sport of cycling. You have both done truly amazing things within cycling over the last number of years and your success has been rightly praised. But with this success comes responsibility and a duty to do as much as possible to ensure a strong future and credible reputation for our sport which is currently suffering the worst crisis in its history.

It is a surprise to me that there has been no published comment from anyone at Team Sky regarding the recent decision by USADA to strip Lance Armstrong of all his victories since 1998. As I'm sure you are both aware the cycling fraternity is often criticised for adhering to a code of silence when it comes to discussing PEDs and doping and there is currently an unwillingness to discuss this freely with the press - surely it is now time for change that fans can believe in.

With the above in mind I urge you to provide public answers to the following questions:

1. Given the amount of energy and hard work you have both put into this sport can you articulate your personal feelings about the Lance Armstrong case. In particular that he, the biggest star of the sports modern era, has defrauded fans of the sport and members of the peloton for the best part of his career?

2. How can cycling fans be expected to have faith in riders or teams when both often refuse to answers questions on doping in an open way when these are raised at press conferences? (Bradley I realise you gave your opinion in your Guardian blog, which is great but not quite the same as addressing questions in a news conference.)

3. How can the sport be seen to be improving its reputation when the majority of the riders in the peloton come out in support of Lance Armstrong as oppose to supporting the pursuit and punishment of cheats by official bodies like USADA and WADA?

4. If, as it appears, the anti doping controls don't work what other measures can teams take, other than the blood passport system, to ensure that fans can be confident in team/rider performances?

5. How is the investigation into the past of Geert Leinders (Team Sky doctor and ex Rabobank doctor) going and when do you think Team Sky will be able to proactively publish some results to the press?

I ask these questions to you both because you currently have a unique opportunity to play a part in the next chapter of this sport, which from a fans perspective has not yet started because of the lack of transparency when it comes to discussing doping. You have a chance to actually be fully transparent and accept that dealing with scepticism of the press and fans is part and parcel of improving the image of the sport. Team Sky doesn't have to follow the old ways of not being outspoken about the damage that doping has done and is still doing to our sport.

Out of respect for the fans that support you and love the sport please speak up in defence of USADA and WADA and help turn the page once and for all.

With deep sincerity

Jonty Tacon (22yrs a cycling fan)

 

[Benotti69]

I think it comes down to the powerful teams managers and riders taking the initiative to speak out. I don't have a twitter account but people who do could tweet Bradley Wiggins and Dave Brailsford with this link, who knows they may provide us with some thoughts:

Dear David and Bradley
Congratulations on a wonderful season. Given the performances by Team Sky over the best part of the season, and the performance of Team GB at the olympics I think it is safe to say that you have both become figureheads for the sport of cycling. You have both done truly amazing things within cycling over the last number of years and your success has been rightly praised. But with this success comes responsibility and a duty to do as much as possible to ensure a strong future and credible reputation for our sport which is currently suffering the worst crisis in its history.

It is a surprise to me that there has been no published comment from anyone at Team Sky regarding the recent decision by USADA to strip Lance Armstrong of all his victories since 1998. As I'm sure you are both aware the cycling fraternity is often criticised for adhering to a code of silence when it comes to discussing PEDs and doping and there is currently an unwillingness to discuss this freely with the press - surely it is now time for change that fans can believe in.

With the above in mind I urge you to provide public answers to the following questions:

1. Given the amount of energy and hard work you have both put into this sport can you articulate your personal feelings about the Lance Armstrong case. In particular that he, the biggest star of the sports modern era, has defrauded fans of the sport and members of the peloton for the best part of his career?

2. How can cycling fans be expected to have faith in riders or teams when both often refuse to answers questions on doping in an open way when these are raised at press conferences? (Bradley I realise you gave your opinion in your Guardian blog, which is great but not quite the same as addressing questions in a news conference.)

3. How can the sport be seen to be improving its reputation when the majority of the riders in the peloton come out in support of Lance Armstrong as oppose to supporting the pursuit and punishment of cheats by official bodies like USADA and WADA?

4. If, as it appears, the anti doping controls don't work what other measures can teams take, other than the blood passport system, to ensure that fans can be confident in team/rider performances?

5. How is the investigation into the past of Geert Leinders (Team Sky doctor and ex Rabobank doctor) going and when do you think Team Sky will be able to proactively publish some results to the press?

I ask these questions to you both because you currently have a unique opportunity to play a part in the next chapter of this sport, which from a fans perspective has not yet started because of the lack of transparency when it comes to discussing doping. You have a chance to actually be fully transparent and accept that dealing with scepticism of the press and fans is part and parcel of improving the image of the sport. Team Sky doesn't have to follow the old ways of not being outspoken about the damage that doping has done and is still doing to our sport.

Out of respect for the fans that support you and love the sport please speak up in defence of USADA and WADA and help turn the page once and for all.

With deep sincerity

Jonty Tacon (22yrs a cycling fan)

Nice letter.

Have you emailed it to Sky? you will get an address on their website. Also cc some cycling websites. it might make Sky not ignore it. Or cc most of their major sponsors.

 

[joe_papp]

I have supported the idea in the past, but I don't think it would work. The current riders cannot even find it in themselves to speak honestly about Armstrong after he was sanctioned. These guys will not come forward and admit their own malfeasance.

Just getting started on reading this thread, but who's to say that T&R would have to be conducted fully in the public's eye? Couldn't the commission meet behind closed doors and here testimony on the record but privately, and then publish a summary analysis with names and what not redacted? After which it would be open season on those who were still doping and facilitating doping.

In addition to coerced openness ("truth and reconciliation"), forgiveness, education, and real, third-party testing - along with, of course, cleaning out the UCI - all of which would make a huge difference - you could also implement a lifetime ban for a first offense, and stiff penalties against the teams, managers, and owners, as well. Believe me, this culture of drugs and cheating can be broken.

And if not a lifetime ban (which would probably raise the hackles of civil libertarian/human rights types), at least a four-year ban for first time offenders. And for those invited to do so who didn't appear for T&R and were then "convicted" of doping (which, remember, could be based on non-analytical evidence like corroborated witness testimony - meaning flipping a few of your teammates against you only) would earn a lifetime ban for their trouble.

 

[trailrunner]

Just getting started on reading this thread, but who's to say that T&R would have to be conducted fully in the public's eye? Couldn't the commission meet behind closed doors and here testimony on the record but privately, and then publish a summary analysis with names and what not redacted?

IMHO, public disclosure is necessary to rebuild the trust of the public and sponsors. I don't trust the process or the people running the process. If it's done in private, then it smacks of another cover-up, and there would be never-ending speculation on who 'fessed up and who didn't.

 

[MarkvW]

Why would anyone in their right mind give Ferrari or Fuentes immunity? Doping is how they make their living! They give FA about the sport.

How could you ever have immunity unless the riders snitched the doping docs?

What riders would ever snitch off the doping docs.

And, just maybe, there is a bit of organized crime surrounding this drug dealing? People who hurt other people for talking.

Silly idea with regard to fixing the sport. Great idea for a whitewash.

 

[BroDeal]

With a thousand or so riders, this thing would take an immense amount of time. I propose more economical solution: A three month window where anyone who won a race cleanly between 1991 and 2010 can report it to the UCI. The final report would consist of a list of the half dozen or so races that were won without doping.

 

[LauraLyn]

IMHO, public disclosure is necessary to rebuild the trust of the public and sponsors. I don't trust the process or the people running the process. If it's done in private, then it smacks of another cover-up, and there would be never-ending speculation on who 'fessed up and who didn't.

Agree. There needs to be public disclosure and accountability.

The USADA is trying an end run here. The USADA suggested a Truth and Reconciliation Process for cycling. McQuaid and Verbruggen can feel the investigators getting close to their own door. Their solution will be to try to control the investigation.

Aside from it's own complicity, I don't see an "amnesty" in and of itself working. It will have to go much deeper than that. This is just another UCI "Never, Never Land."

Actually, it is not clear just who should conduct a Truth and Reconciliation Process.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Actually, it is not clear just who should conduct a Truth and Reconciliation Process.

This is an important point being brought up again. Who pays for the administrative body? Where do they get their authority? The UCI answers to no one in particular and they aren't going to give that up.

The IOC doesn't want to touch cycling for fear of a doping controversy affecting the Olympic brand. e.g. ant-doping controversy vs. actually anti-doping. It's not controversial to suggest the IOC has so many hidden doping scandals that they don't want to uncover any of them, much less ones hiding in tainted cycling.

I can't see any other organization fit for the task or funding it either.

 

[LauraLyn]

This is an important point being brought up again. Who pays for the administrative body? Where do they get their authority? The UCI answers to no one in particular and they aren't going to give that up.

The IOC doesn't want to touch cycling for fear of a doping controversy affecting the Olympic brand. e.g. ant-doping controversy vs. actually anti-doping. It's not controversial to suggest the IOC has so many hidden doping scandals that they don't want to uncover any of them, much less ones hiding in tainted cycling.

I can't see any other organization fit for the task or funding it either.

I think only WADA could do this. And I think UCI should be forced to fund it. Perhaps a first round of funding could come from the repayment of Lance Amstrong's prize money.

 

[Maxiton]

Why would anyone in their right mind give Ferrari or Fuentes immunity? Doping is how they make their living! They give FA about the sport.

How could you ever have immunity unless the riders snitched the doping docs?

What riders would ever snitch off the doping docs.

And, just maybe, there is a bit of organized crime surrounding this drug dealing? People who hurt other people for talking.

Silly idea with regard to fixing the sport. Great idea for a whitewash.

The people who have a future in the sport, and on whom the sport's future depends - these people have a place in the T&R process. They include riders, managers, owners, sponsors. They do not include criminal doctors, criminal governing body bureaucrats, or criminal criminals.

In order for a T&R process to work, it has to have realistic expectations, and realistic limitations. It's going to have to be limited to cycling only, of course, and any immunity for criminal activity - if there can even be such a thing - will necessarily have to be extremely limited, and probably not guaranteed. This would mean that for those states where PED doping is a crime, prosecutors would agree, provisionally, to not pursue charges against riders, managers, owners, and sponsors who had been involved in it, so long as the latter made a good faith effort in the T&R process.

The T&R idea has gotten enough traction to get McQuaid to mention it. Maybe he loves the sound of the word "amnesty". But a T&R plan only makes sense after the main criminals and culprits have been driven from the sport. That means McQuaid and Armstrong, Verdruggem and Johan, and so on, have no place in it.

Like every other such process, it wouldn't be perfect. But it would be a start - a huge start. First, though, McQuaid and the rest have to be gone.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

T & R has in all cases, such as South Africa and Latin America been carried out and organized by the new incoming regime, not the incumbent regime.

You can not have T & R with the ancien regime in charge.

Second point of T & R - it is designed to punish not only those at the bottom (as criminal investigations do) but also those at the top.

Third point T & R is only effective if it has the power to compel witnesses to speak under oath. One of the criticisms of T & R in SA is the failure to compel P.W Botha to testify. T & R would be meaningless if McQuaid and Verbruggan were not called to account as much as the Tom Danielson's of the world.

Fourth point T & R has to look at the whole picture not just the crimes themselves. We can substitute 'human rights abuses' for 'doping' in this context (Quotes are in note form because these are my working notes):

Addressed accountability for human rights abuse more broadly by examining the roles played by professions and institutions in resisting or facilitating human rights abuse. Held hearings on the role of the medical & legal professions under apartheid and focused national attention on professional codes of conduct.

So it would certainly have to include the media, medical profession, wider sporting authorities, sponsors etc.

Regarding amnesty. This is from SA case. Amnesty was and was not given in certain circumstances (again my notes):

AC [Amnesty Comission MJM] considered amnesty applications. To qualify two preconditions required: the crime had to be associated with a political objective and to give full disclosure.

Applied to members of political organizations, liberation movements or state security forces. Had to be engaged in the struggle or countering resistance.

If eligible for amnesty the motive, nature and context of the act was considered. Anyone acting for personal gain didn’t qualify for amnesty, except if they received money or anything of value for being an informer.

Crimes motivated by personal malice, ill will or spite not granted amnesty. If the crime violated human rights a public hearing had to be conducted .

So amnesty exists but with strings attached and subject to what you did.

Why would you have T & R? This is something that McQuaid has clearly not understood.

Prompted reforms to ensure that human rights abuses don’t occur again. Uncovered the truth not only about perpetrators of murder or torture but also the intellectual authors who provided political or operational authority.

The information gathered was central to its most important aims: the official acknowledgment of human rights abuse.

Acknowledgment crucial as the state and citizens must recognize not only human rights abuse, but its wrongfulness.

Once admitted the moral space that allowed it to occur is narrowed.
Knowing the truth and building a consensus that abuses are illegitimate is vital in preventing their recurrence.

 

[LauraLyn]

The people who have a future in the sport, and on whom the sport's future depends - these people have a place in the T&R process. They include riders, managers, owners, sponsors. They do not include criminal doctors, criminal governing body bureaucrats, or criminal criminals.
. . . . First, though, McQuaid and the rest have to be gone.

Frankly, the sanctions for the doctors are far from enough. These doctors not only need to be banned from sports for life, they need to lose their medical license. This would stop them being in a position to provide drugs or handle "patients." But more importantly these doctors have violated the Hypocratic Oath on which their practice is based. They have no place whatsoever in medicine. They should not even be allowed to hand out Band-aids for knee scrapes.

It seems McQuaid so far is surviving. We do not hear any voices in the UCI moving against him. The problem is their is no clear avenue open to bring the doping control agencies past the riders and team flunkies.

UCI is a corporation. It is closing ranks around its leader. Lance takes the fall. Too bad, because they even pretended to like him so much.

There is no way UCI will appeal, anything. They will take as long as they possibly can to review the "reasoned decision" once they receive the official letter on Lance. Then they will come out and say that "the evidence" was ("unfortunately") convincing, and they are going to implement the sanctions (which will take until the cows come home). And they will say that they do not necessarily agree on "jurisdiction," but because "the evidence" was so convincing they will not raise the jurisdiction question here. And they will say, as someone else here said (apologies, can't recall the poster), that they are carry out an internal investigation and rules review.