- Aug 27, 2012
Note I have introduced some headings in your quotes to make reading easier.
Certainly dark... Have to start positive & constructive somewhere... Personally I think it's a great manifesto. But media pressure needs to continue to build on it to force the change...Dear Wiggo said:My Negative Nancy take on the points:
Armstrong is now "proven and agreed", undisputable. Others you and most everyone else knows about but can/will be argued by UCI - as you know.Dear Wiggo said:1. recognize responsibilities re Armstrong case
And ASO's sacking of Clerc?
AFLD's treatment of Bordry?
WADA's treatment of **** Pound?
IOC's acceptance of Hein and Pat into the fold despite the obvious shortcomings of their governance of cycling and Pat's lifelong ban from the Olympics?
So if it's heading for a Vrijman-like sham the media alliance need to point this out early. And WADA/IOC/National feds, or they will be complicit in the sham outcome also.Dear Wiggo said:2. independent doping investigation
In a word: money. This commission will take money, and there is none.
And Pat is on a number of WADA boards.
I have gleaned a little information re: ADAMS and it sounds like it was developed on a shoestring budget.
Agreed. Needs finetuning. A better anti-doping funding model needs to be developed and agreed. As part of what the sponsors and teams/rider association demand from the sports administration...Dear Wiggo said:3.doping testing & mgmt separate
Who handles results management?
What about pre-competition and out of competition - arguably when the most reckless doping would occur?
From 2010 to 2011, UCI OOC test collection dropped from 13% to 1%, NADO increased 1% to 4% and agencies increased from 86% to 95%. UCI would welcome someone else doing all the collection and analysis - it costs money!
doping penalties must include a stronger team punishment so that teams are more responsible for rider practices.Dear Wiggo said:4.more severe suspensions
Punish the riders. Who are already scared of team managers.
5. temporary rider suspension when investigating
Punish the rider. This already happens (eg: entire teams not invited to Tour or ejected from Tour). What about the team, their doctors, or other people involved?
see above under 3. for a start to this discussion. A sponsor body may be useful to represent sponsor expectations from the administrator. At the moment sponsors are played off one by one by Pat & Hein.Dear Wiggo said:6. sponsor involvement & accountability
Nice words - not sure what this means in real terms.
plenty of discussion on this elsewhere.Dear Wiggo said:7.point system & licence reform
Disagree with sponsors owning the license - in fact I think the idea is ludicrious. Professional cycling is not their core business and they have no knowledge of its operation. Nor any commitment to the sport, unlike managers. Far more sponsors have dropped entire teams in it than managers, by pulling out for whatever reason. No, just no.
Agree with reworking the points system, as mentioned in another thread. Not sure "reform" is the right word, it's not like it's completely broken or needs a radical makeover. The basic premise is you earn your way onto the World Tour.
this is a fairly typical concept elsewhere in the business/political world, and can be highly useful. But needs people other than the current mob to action.Dear Wiggo said:8. cycling summit
Grandiose ideas, for sure, nice words too, but not actionable, imo.
Cycling organisation is something that has evolved and developed over decades. It's not something you're going to redefine at a cycling summit in January of 2013.
Leadership sets the tone and drives the agenda/process. The outcome is a function thereof. The current outcome is a disaster because the leadership is not right. Agenda/process follows leadership. Outcome follows agenda/process.Dear Wiggo said:For me the single biggest problem, based on the above is this:
Riders have no or very little power, control or say in what goes on.
Yes, I agree the systems needs to be reworked, with rules and structures in place to support the sport. No question the UCI need to be reworked and rethought. But as I have said all along - blaming the UCI, or trying to fix the UCI in isolation, will ultimately fail in changing professional cycling. UCI are only part of the machine, which from the IOC to the forum shills needs to be considered in totality.
Please explain your thinking more. This is way more radical than any above...Dear Wiggo said:Step 1: remove the need for sponsors.