Truth & Reconciliation

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
weeniebeenie said:
I think that's the main problem. I would be angry if I was serving a lengthy ban for doping, but then a T&R commission is set up and everyone else escapes with 6 months.
This is not the issue. If the UCI were even-handed about handing out doping suspensions to begin with, then I'd be more sympathetic to this as an issue.

weeniebeenie said:
However, I don't know how you get around it unless you agree to significantly reduce lengthy bans that are currently being served in the event that the people serving them agree to provide a full confession to the T&R commission. This would obviously include Armstrong and Ricco.
Interesting. I'm convinced the T&R concept is the Vrijman Report they didn't get with the IC. That's the effort, not a fair accounting. As much as Hein is still selling the Wonderboy myth, it wouldn't surprise me to read that becomes an extra bonus to the Vrijman Report.

It sounds like WADA is giving the UCI no quarter. Ideally, the media sees through the UCI's clever attempt to shift blame by following WADA's lead and reports it as that.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
The UCI's T&R will be:

1. Forget the past move on to the future.

They have no plan to out anything or anyone as it does not benefit them one bit.
 
ElChingon said:
The UCI's T&R will be:

1. Forget the past move on to the future.

They have no plan to out anything or anyone as it does not benefit them one bit.
We all have our truths. The UCI's truths are self-evident.

Now, can we reconcile and be done with it?

Dave.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
sashimono said:
Letting people who destroyed a sport off the hook and using words like "truth" and "reconciliation" to describe it is hilarious.

How about a "Crime and Punishment" committee?
But isn't that exactly what reconciliation is?

In getting at the whole truth one has to accept that they will not be sanctioned.
My preference has always been to catch dopers and have them sanctioned appropriately, but desperate times calls for desperate measures - this is a desperate time.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
The truth will set them free, for six months, then they will go on like buisiness as usual.

No one will confess to anything of the last two/six years.

Addicts do not confess, only the little ones like Niermann will open up.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
The truth will set them free, for six months, then they will go on like buisiness as usual.

No one will confess to anything of the last two/six years.

Addicts do not confess, only the little ones like Niermann will open up.
In that case, aren't the majority of the Pro peloton 'little ones'?

While the details of any TRC have yet to be released it would be a given that there would only be an amnesty for complete testimony.
So anyone continuing to lie would eventually be exposed by someone else and would probably get a long sanction.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
But isn't that exactly what reconciliation is?

In getting at the whole truth one has to accept that they will not be sanctioned.
My preference has always been to catch dopers and have them sanctioned appropriately, but desperate times calls for desperate measures - this is a desperate time.
Nobody can trust the UCI, so why even bother thinking about Truth and Reconciliation?

It's a bad idea unless it is administered by honest people and is directed at permanently eliminating non-rider doping administrators from the peleton.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
MarkvW said:
Nobody can trust the UCI, so why even bother thinking about Truth and Reconciliation?

It's a bad idea unless it is administered by honest people and is directed at permanently eliminating non-rider doping administrators from the peleton.
I am not about the UCI - no I do not trust them in any way.
Which is exactly why one would discuss what T&R is or should be.

Also, the only people who can make T&R a reality is WADA as they would have to authorize a rule change.
 
Aug 24, 2010
101
0
0
frenchfry said:
The next question is whether or not such a process could actually be beneficial. ..

What will a T&R commission really change?

Not to mention that it appears to be a pretext by the UCI to disband the "independent" commission that was intended to investigate their shady business. It now looks like this is a maneuver to avoid the truth from coming out, and maybe as a bonus to allow their financial backer Armstrong to latch onto an amnesty plan so he can continue to seduce his speedo clad groupies.
I think the benefit would be the exposure of the UCI complicity, a demonstration of the need for change in the constitutions of the UCI (open, supervised elections, no life terms for commission members), and the evidence that the anti-doping efforts have to be carried out by those outside the sport.

This apparently can't be done by the UCI. But maybe by wada, usada, ioc? 'Wish the IOC was ready to stand behind Pound's suggestion.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
mtb Dad said:
I think the benefit would be the exposure of the UCI complicity, a demonstration of the need for change in the constitutions of the UCI (open, supervised elections, no life terms for commission members), and the evidence that the anti-doping efforts have to be carried out by those outside the sport.

This apparently can't be done by the UCI. But maybe by wada, usada, ioc? 'Wish the IOC was ready to stand behind Pound's suggestion.
It should also be remembered that T&R is only one part of a list of solutions proposed.
And the only ones to articulate what T&R might actually be was USADA, and any amnesty was restricted to riders and low level staff of teams.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
The truth will set them free, for six months, then they will go on like buisiness as usual.

No one will confess to anything of the last two/six years.

Addicts do not confess, only the little ones like Niermann will open up.
Right, why would anybody voluntarily start talking and get be assured of a sentence? Then of course is the inevitable blackball follow up from teams and powers to be in the sport.

What incentive is there in that? Then, toss in civil liability issues by accusing people and it really gets fun. If I doped I think I would take my chances on just staying quiet.

Who comes up with this ****?
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
mtb Dad said:
This apparently can't be done by the UCI. But maybe by wada, usada, ioc?
None of them can do it.

The only organisation there with real credibility in this is USADA, but unfortunately the 'US' in their name highlights the limited mandate they have when you look at the extent of the problem.

WADA would be the logical choice, but they also have limited power, relying instead on each federation/country to implement the requirements of the WADA code. They have very limited investigative capability and certainly no power to investigate other organisations like the UCI.

IOC - never. They didn't do a good job before WADA existed and many would suggest, with some justification, that WADA was setup on a smoke and mirrors basis.

'Wish the IOC was ready to stand behind Pound's suggestion.
I hope they don't kick out cycling, but instead focus on removing the UCI from the process. Go back to the pre-UCI days - establish their own rules and regulations for cycling and deal directly through the olympic committees of each country as they do on many other issues. Cycling as a sport is good for the Olympics. It's the UCI involvement in it that is corrupt. Remove that and move on with all of the honest, hard working athletes in many of the disciplines.
 
ChrisE said:
Right, why would anybody voluntarily start talking and get be assured of a sentence? Then of course is the inevitable blackball follow up from teams and powers to be in the sport.

What incentive is there in that? Then, toss in civil liability issues by accusing people and it really gets fun. If I doped I think I would take my chances on just staying quiet.

Who comes up with this ****?
This pretty much sums up the situation.

Plus we all know the truth is that Armstrong quit doping in 2005 and everyone else in 2006.
 
Sep 24, 2012
46
0
0
Interesting how McQuaid consistently uses the phrase "....doping in the past". This could be the main sticking point with USADA and WADA. There's just too much evidence to suggest that the problems aren't in the past, and that any serious investigation has to also include current culture, practises and leadership. Focus from now on should be on how to achieve wholesale change of personnel at the UCI. Perhaps even a new name for the governing body.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
The truth will set them free, for six months, then they will go on like buisiness as usual.

No one will confess to anything of the last two/six years.

Addicts do not confess, only the little ones like Niermann will open up.
Agree with this: we have already had the mantra of I stopped in 2005/2006...the peloton is clean now...there was a truce in 2008 etc from everyone really. Not many pro-riders out there saying it's still going on, unless I missed the press release, so why in a T&R would they change their tune? I think any admittance will fall short of satisfying the cynics
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
JimmyFingers said:
Agree with this: we have already had the mantra of I stopped in 2005/2006...the peloton is clean now...there was a truce in 2008 etc from everyone really. Not many pro-riders out there saying it's still going on, unless I missed the press release, so why in a T&R would they change their tune? I think any admittance will fall short of satisfying the cynics
2 things here.
One is you are assuming you know the current status of doping in the peloton. Frankly no-one knows, and the only way to find out is through the riders testimony, which is what T&R could do.

Secondly, the riders currently have no incentive to be honest. In a T&R past discretion's would be waived as long as the athlete gives full honest disclosure -that is a big incentive.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
Here's why I don't care about not punishing riders who admit to previous doping offences in a T&R commission.

Firstly, I do not believe that the riders themselves are the ones largely at fault for doping. Yes they make a decision about whether to inject or not to inject, to pop that pill or not to pop that pill, but it is my belief that the ones to blame are largely the institutions of the sport. Corrupt national and international federations, generations of managers pressing doping onto riders from a young age. In life, most people follow societal rules not official rules. We behave as society tells us, not as the law does; often law influences society, but occasionally it does not. You have here a situation where young men enter a tight-knit community in which it must be difficult to maintain friendships outside of this world - they are desperate to fit it and do what they can to do so, and it doesn't feel wrong because everyone is doing it.

It is my view that bans are in place not necessarily to punish a rider per se but to set up an incentive structure to try and get them not to dope, or at the very least to make doping harder. As such, when a good proportion of those likely to be testifying are either retired or at the tail-end of their careers, I don't think you can say that any post-dated result-stripping and/or fines are an incentive to get one of the desired results; less doping. All they are is a disincentive to get other desired results; the truth being one, and possibly as a consequence of that truth, less future doping as rotten individuals are rooted out.

If this is done correctly, it will be a one-off. The aim is to clean things up and I don't believe the message sent out will be "it's fine, I can dope, in 20 years there will be a T&R and I'll get off free". Frankly all the confessions we are going to get are from those who have already gotten away with it. Without this process and some kind of incentive to confess (or at the very least removal of the huge disincentives currently in place) we will never hear these stories. It is not as though backdated testing is suddenly going to implicate 500 riders and the T&R is a handy way of them getting immunity from impending punishments. They are already immune.

In this situation, it is clear in my view that punishments for riders are counterproductive. There are plenty of other people who could be punished. Administrators, managers and doctors will all likely see testimony against them and need not be protected by the T&R. Those people can be punished if charges stick, or if not then at the very least their positions will be put under scrutiny. A team hiring a doctor who doped riders for 10 years will be asked "What is he doing on your staff?". Managers found to have been pressuring young riders into doping can be asked "Are you fit to run a cycling team?". Administrators shown to have turned blind eyes and taken bribes will be asked "Are you fit to be running a sport?". There are plenty of people who share a lot of blame for the condition of cycling as it is now who stand to lose a lot from this commission, and I think that is why we are not going to see it. Even if there are no official consequences for anyone, it is not hard to see that we will have unofficial ones whatever happens.

The Clinic is often accused (fairly) of being extremely speculative - drawing potentially damaging conclusions from limited facts. What is not examined by those who like to make that accusation is why there are so few facts. There are few facts because there are concerted efforts in place to suppress facts about doping coming out. To me the fact that Pat McQuaid does not want us to hear something is, in itself, more or less a good enough reason for wanting to hear it. Is this drawing a line under past doping? Yes, in a sense, but unlike previous lines it will not be drawn by those in charge, they will not even be able to control it. Does it say "Past offences are okay."? No, I do not believe it does. To me it says "they are what they are, but for the sake of the future we have to do some things that in an ideal world we might not". We are always told by cycling's powers that be "the past was the past, let's look to the future" without actually knowing what the past was. This is a once in a generation opportunity to find out what it was, and to use that information to better the future. I suggest we take it.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ChewbaccaD said:
The UCI are using the LA playbook in PR and spin.

The email exchange is a good example - what they 'leaked' (to be transparent, ha!) did not back up their suggestion that WADA were being mean to them, but of course most people only read the headline or press release instead of the full pieces.
 
I honestly don't see how a T&R process would work. What's the incentive for the big names to come out and confess? Or for anyone from the magically clean period, 2008-2013? At most it'd work to document the Armstrong days. Besides, unless the UCI is fundamentally changed so that we can be sure cheats who haven't confessed won't be protected, business will go on as usual.
 
Apr 16, 2009
394
0
0
neineinei said:
Thanks. A reading exposes Pat to be a deceitful, incompetent moron. How can any cycling federation credibly support this buffoon?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts