UCI has one 'last chance to prove its credibility'

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Note I have introduced some headings in your quotes to make reading easier.
Dear Wiggo said:
My Negative Nancy take on the points:
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:
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?
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:
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.
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:
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!
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:
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?
doping penalties must include a stronger team punishment so that teams are more responsible for rider practices.

Dear Wiggo said:
6. sponsor involvement & accountability
Nice words - not sure what this means in real terms.
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:
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.
plenty of discussion on this elsewhere.

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.
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:
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.
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:
Step 1: remove the need for sponsors.
Please explain your thinking more. This is way more radical than any above...
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Tinman said:
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...
I am not going anywhere, so am happy to stfu and just see what happens. We have been here before, though. Both the Giro and the Tour were created by newspapers to sell ... more newspapers. And the riders were treated poorly.

They still are.

I wrote a heap more but think I'll leave my critique of this manifesto at that. Let's revisit in July 2013 and see how much better things are.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
I wrote a heap more but think I'll leave my critique of this manifesto at that. Let's revisit in July 2013 and see how much better things are.
Please don't confuse ability to say "I told you so" with "contributing suggestions for possible change". We need the positive contributions, as unlikely as you may think they may be, there are folk who may/ will pickup on your wisdoms. And a lot of progress has been made in the past 2 months. Usada, LA, Sky, media awareness and noise, UCI pressure... But yes more action now needed to convert this momentum into real change.

You sound tired, maybe have a break from this place...
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
I'll see if I can explain where I am coming from.

In my profession I see this exact same thing happen all the time. All the time.

Something goes wrong or something needs to be improved and people get a bee in their bonnet and rush off to fix something or shore something up or replace it or etc, etc, etc. It has to be done asap, or the stakeholders are gonna come crashing down on us. And we have to do the whole shebang too - everything has to be fixed up.

So the stakeholders have a meeting, and agree to a resolution and the board approve the spend and then the managers hire in some resources and business analysts and layer upon layer upon layer of BS.

And at no point in time has anyone considered, let alone talked to, the person who is using the system, day in, day out - the user.

The new change or whatever is part marketing exercise, or helps make it easier for someone in management to do their job. But the user - they are out in the cold, and have no say in the system, how it's used on a daily, hourly basis, where the system is headed, etc.

When I look at this manifesto, I see the same sort of thing happening. All the management types puffing their chests out, shocking, shocking, most of the media saying, shocking, shocking, we need to fix this.

How? Blame the living snot out of the UCI, then come up with a new organisation and new set of rules, and make the punishments of the riders harsher.

Nowhere in this manifesto do I see any consultation with riders mentioned, or any interest shown in their welfare. (OK I just read the manifesto and it's even worse than I imagined. Good grief).

Both the Giro and the Tour were started by newspapers who wanted to sell more newspapers. The riders were treated like crap. In 2011 there's a car in the middle of the Tour nearly killing riders in the breakaway as it tries to avoid hitting a tree, and then May 2012, Stephen Roche has verbal diarrhea about riders not being allowed to unzip their jerseys. ie riders are still being treated like crap. There's a thread here suggesting to shorten GTs or modify them to make them less strenuous and there's a resounding NO from most people who then say riders would dope anyway.

In my experience, the best system is the one built
1. through consultation with the users
2. a little bit at a time

1. The pro cycling system has to be based on the rider. And none of this manifesto tells me it is going to be.
2. An independent body needs to be created, to provide a mechanism for checks and balances once the structure is in place, and possibly to have a hand in its construction.

And then you change something, observe it, and see if it has any effect. Keep it if it works, try something else out if it doesn't.

The biological passport is a fine example. Of something that is not working. Any better than the 50% Hct rule did - and for far less money.

Let's face it. The only problem, really, with cycling, is the doping. And the only people doing the doping, in the end, are the riders. So if we don't start with them, anything you layer on top of that level of the structure is ... well I am tempted to say "bound to fail", and given the success of any measures to date, I'd be pretty right.

Go back to my profession example - users end up doing what they need to do to get their job done, regardless of the shiny new system you put in place for them.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0

Let's face it. The only problem, really, with cycling, is the doping. And the only people doing the doping, in the end, are the riders. So if we don't start with them, anything you layer on top of that level of the structure is ... well I am tempted to say "bound to fail", and given the success of any measures to date, I'd be pretty right.



Can I make a tentative suggestion, here DW? There is always ANOTHER layer of 'why?' behind any 'final' basic statement.

Let's accept the key (I can't agree with only) problem with cycling is Doping - it's certainly the key credibility problem for the sport itself. But WHY is doping so endemic, so hard to stamp out?

First, you hit something with the fact that the Giro and Le tour (and the vuelta? 'Informaciones'?) were invented to sell newspapers - they are inherently unrealistic races, invented by people who didn't care about riders - and yet, I'm certain, clean riders have completed them.

What did USADA show, aside from what a c**t LA was to all and sundry? That the doping was SYSTEMATIC and TEAM LEAD.

So we need a way to hold riders to account for doping, to the point where they won't dope(deterance and education), or the can't dope(supervision). But we also need to find a way to protect riders from TEAM pressures. (and indirectly sponsor pressures).

Well, dare I say it, the same tools need applied - deterance and supervision. So how do we deter teas, and the people who make up teams. and how do we supervise teams, as well as riders.

I think the manifesto is a start if it shows the newspapers recognise the fatal lack of either.

The question now is to start designing something that will fill this gap - in the face of teams loaded with dopers, ex-dopers, would-be dopers, and dodgy doctors.

For me, personally, I would welcome a strong campaign to make doping, supplying dope, facilitating doping, and, hell, omerta itself, criminal offences in every country (and not just for cycling i might add) that is a member of UCI/IOC, on pain of exclusion for the country that won't. And that means criminal, with jail time (it's both drug pushing and fraud as far as i'm concerned) for the rider, the doctor, the SD's, the Riis's, the Brailsfords, the Vaughters, the Ekimovs, the Vini'f***ing'kourovs.

The Festina debacle did nothing to clean up cycling...except, oddly, to a small extent, in France - where the fear of jail seems to have had some small effect - reflected in the limited French success since.

Furthermore, and this is my personal bugbear, loudly supporting doped riders brings the sport into disrepute - in other sports that means bans too - it should do in cycling as well - more of that crap from Ekimov and Contador and Valverde and they can get the hell of the tour.

My 2c.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Not 100% sure, but team-wide doping does not happen any more, and certainly not to the point it did with USPS, which was rather anomalous.

Times have changed, so has the culture. There may be team-wide doping, but it's not, I believe, the norm.

Ashenden says, "highly sophisticated pockets" and I am prepared to give him that.

As for the harshness of jail time - again, you are making a decision and suggesting we force it on the riders, without consulting them first. Completely and utterly disagree.

Personally, I want no part of jail, and feel it's a stupid and ineffective institution. Imagine if they introduced jail for the offence of taking home a pen or piece of paper from work - how would you feel?

As for the loud support - heheheh you've been tricked, I think you will find. Try this: count how many loudly supportive riders there are. Then divide that number into 955 - the number of biological passport riders in 2011. That's the %. Then show me it's more than 10%, becaue I believe you will find it's closer to 1 or 2%.

Here's what I see: polemic sells papers, so that's who the media report.

It looks like riders support dopers, when in actual fact, the media report those rider's comments and even seek them out.

The system must start with the riders, not the teams, and not jail terms. And work your way up from there. Definitely just my opinion.

ETA: if you seriously expect me to believe the Frenchy in France, Tommy Voekler, the 200km @ 35km/hr over 4 Cat 1+ climbs finishing fresh as a daisy is clean, I got some bridges to sell you...
 
Dec 30, 2010
391
0
0
martinvickers said:

Let's face it. The only problem, really, with cycling, is the doping. And the only people doing the doping, in the end, are the riders. So if we don't start with them, anything you layer on top of that level of the structure is ... well I am tempted to say "bound to fail", and given the success of any measures to date, I'd be pretty right.



Can I make a tentative suggestion, here DW? There is always ANOTHER layer of 'why?' behind any 'final' basic statement.

Let's accept the key (I can't agree with only) problem with cycling is Doping - it's certainly the key credibility problem for the sport itself. But WHY is doping so endemic, so hard to stamp out?

First, you hit something with the fact that the Giro and Le tour (and the vuelta? 'Informaciones'?) were invented to sell newspapers - they are inherently unrealistic races, invented by people who didn't care about riders - and yet, I'm certain, clean riders have completed them.

What did USADA show, aside from what a c**t LA was to all and sundry? That the doping was SYSTEMATIC and TEAM LEAD.

So we need a way to hold riders to account for doping, to the point where they won't dope(deterance and education), or the can't dope(supervision). But we also need to find a way to protect riders from TEAM pressures. (and indirectly sponsor pressures).

Well, dare I say it, the same tools need applied - deterance and supervision. So how do we deter teas, and the people who make up teams. and how do we supervise teams, as well as riders.

I think the manifesto is a start if it shows the newspapers recognise the fatal lack of either.

The question now is to start designing something that will fill this gap - in the face of teams loaded with dopers, ex-dopers, would-be dopers, and dodgy doctors.

For me, personally, I would welcome a strong campaign to make doping, supplying dope, facilitating doping, and, hell, omerta itself, criminal offences in every country (and not just for cycling i might add) that is a member of UCI/IOC, on pain of exclusion for the country that won't. And that means criminal, with jail time (it's both drug pushing and fraud as far as i'm concerned) for the rider, the doctor, the SD's, the Riis's, the Brailsfords, the Vaughters, the Ekimovs, the Vini'f***ing'kourovs.

The Festina debacle did nothing to clean up cycling...except, oddly, to a small extent, in France - where the fear of jail seems to have had some small effect - reflected in the limited French success since.

Furthermore, and this is my personal bugbear, loudly supporting doped riders brings the sport into disrepute - in other sports that means bans too - it should do in cycling as well - more of that crap from Ekimov and Contador and Valverde and they can get the hell of the tour.

My 2c.
+100

well written MV .
I couldnt agree more , from the top down not the bottom up that would be the right approach in this case . Nothing is going to happen if we do the same old , same old . The Pat and Hein formula just must be removed and Pat and Hein must resign before any of this moves forward in a positive direction .

MV , your comment about selling News papers is so true , from the early years that is exactly how the tours were started . To sell more papers .
Now enter modern times , enter the great global Cancer society and the continuous appetite for research funds . Enter the pharmastrong cancer society(or whatever you want to call the various groups ) and its strangle hold on the average persons angst . You get a modern version of what started the tours, only with even more power over the people and it keeps on going . Everyone jump on the band wagon and market it to death . :cool:
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
The doping problem is not the fault of the riders. They are the lowest rung on the ladder.

The doping problem starts with the federations who do little to prevent doping and do even less when told about it.

The tests are a joke

The DS are the ones putting the pressure on riders to dope.

The teams have so many doctors, why? doping reasons! to either prevent riders getting caught or enable doping and help riders beat testing.

So those thinking it is the riders who are at fault are ignoring the reality.
 
Oct 30, 2010
177
0
0
Dear Wiggo,

You've made some interesting and thought-provoking contributions to this thread. Good work sir.

I agree with them all. Apart from the prison bit. I'm a 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' type, myself.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Times have changed, so has the culture. There may be team-wide doping, but it's not, I believe, the norm.

I agree, praise be to Allah for small mercies. Team-wide doping is pretty hard to do, frankly - it's why USPS worked it so well, LA was so sociopathic about it - one 'rotten egg' omerta breaker can screw you over - let's face it, Walshie, Kimmage, and esp Emma and Betsy were the true heroes of the USPS takedown - but the guys who 'got it done'? Hamilton and Landis - they, and the Fed case they gave evidence to, were the tipping point.

An old Army saying- Heroes are for Radio, but Battles are for *******s.

FWIW, Compare Riis's nonchalant doping strategy to the machine of Bruyneel/Armstrong. As a general rule, pockets are more believable.




As for the harshness of jail time - again, you are making a decision and suggesting we force it on the riders, without consulting them first. Completely and utterly disagree.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, and I accept it's a proposal that needs 'consultation' on a dramatic level - but i'm keeping the proposal out there.

Personally, I want no part of jail, and feel it's a stupid and ineffective institution. Imagine if they introduced jail for the offence of taking home a pen or piece of paper from work - how would you feel?

As I stated earlier, to my eternal discredit, I am a lawyer, and that offence already exists - it's called theft, and while rarely prosecuted, it's not unheard of, indeed i've done defences of people charged with little more - a guilty verdict would probably get you nothing more than £30 fine in my jurisidiction - but I would consider sports doping a somewhat more serious offence - a mixture of drug pedalling and fraud

As for the loud support - heheheh you've been tricked, I think you will find. Try this: count how many loudly supportive riders there are. Then divide that number into 955 - the number of biological passport riders in 2011. That's the %. Then show me it's more than 10%, becaue I believe you will find it's closer to 1 or 2%.

I don't mean loud in number, i mean occasional vocal individuals - but i note Contador's statement today is a step in the right direction for him - (for the record, i think he's as dirty as the day as long - and also a fantastically gifted rider - it's heartbreaking to see a talent like his tainted by his selfishness, stupidity and cheating)


The system must start with the riders, not the teams, and not jail terms. And work your way up from there. Definitely just my opinion.

like a**eholes, we all have one ;)


ETA: if you seriously expect me to believe the Frenchy in France, Tommy Voekler, the 200km @ 35km/hr over 4 Cat 1+ climbs finishing fresh as a daisy is clean, I got some bridges to sell you...[/QUOTE]

I'm jury out on wee V - but I'm not suggesting for a second that there are NO french dopers, au contraire - only that the number of them, and how much dope they are willing to risk, seems to have responded rather well to the threat of incarceration.

lots of 2c, if not a lot of sense - see what i did there? :rolleyes:
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
martinvickers said:
The system must start with the riders, not the teams, and not jail terms. And work your way up from there. Definitely just my opinion.

like a**eholes, we all have one ;)
I realise this is a popular meme, but if you have no respect for someone's opinion, that is when you should use it. IMO.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
martinvickers said:
ETA: if you seriously expect me to believe the Frenchy in France, Tommy Voekler, the 200km @ 35km/hr over 4 Cat 1+ climbs finishing fresh as a daisy is clean, I got some bridges to sell you...
I'm jury out on wee V - but I'm not suggesting for a second that there are NO french dopers, au contraire - only that the number of them, and how much dope they are willing to risk, seems to have responded rather well to the threat of incarceration.
The other way to look at it is the risk of jail just raised the IQ limit on doping protocols, and the French decided they were not (yet) intelligent enough.

One of the arguments raised here, often, is that UK Postal do not have the same problems as US Postal in terms of blatant in your face evidence or testimony.

But if the peloton are anything, they are learners, by osmosis or otherwise. And to me it makes far more sense that the protocols are being fine-tuned. That the collective doping IQ of the peloton is being raised, slowly but surely.

It certainly helps if Ashenden goes around telling everyone how to beat the biological passport with some EPO micro-dosing and that plasticizers only have a 3 hour detection window.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Great discussion, particularly on rider issue representation.

How about sponsors?

It seems to me we have a huge difference in sponsor motivations, some to whom a "clean" brand is critical going forward because of the nature of the business they are in and the brand associations (Garmin, Sky, Rabobank), and some who wouldn't care less, eg Astana, Katusha.

Unless we have strong leadership on doping enforcement this dichotomy cannot persist. One cannot have both camps ("win clean" vs "win at all cost") in the one sport. And that's where we are now.

I cannot see the attraction for a Garmin or Sky to stay in the sport longer term in the current climate. I think Rabo made the right call, particularly with the fall out going to continue for them. If I were Garmin or Sky or any major sponsor to whom "clean" and "trust" is a major brand association For my customers I would want to see drastic and fast change in the way UCI manages the sport, or I'd find other opportunities with safer ROI for my sponsorship dollar.

So what will happen to pro-cycling then? A sport for those audiences where "clean" and "trust" are irrelevant? We have that sport currently: pro-wrestling...

I think we need sponsors interested in a clean sport to get together and demand the changes to the sport we need from UCI. Rabo dropping out sent shock waves to Pat &Hein and they are falling over backwards to try and contain the damage. We need more sponsor pressure. Follow the money, that's where it hurts.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Markyboyzx6r said:
Dear Wiggo,

You've made some interesting and thought-provoking contributions to this thread. Good work sir.

I agree with them all. Apart from the prison bit. I'm a 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' type, myself.
martinvickers said:
As for the harshness of jail time - again, you are making a decision and suggesting we force it on the riders, without consulting them first. Completely and utterly disagree.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, and I accept it's a proposal that needs 'consultation' on a dramatic level - but i'm keeping the proposal out there.
Personally, I want no part of jail, and feel it's a stupid and ineffective institution. Imagine if they introduced jail for the offence of taking home a pen or piece of paper from work - how would you feel?
As I stated earlier, to my eternal discredit, I am a lawyer, and that offence already exists - it's called theft, and while rarely prosecuted, it's not unheard of, indeed i've done defences of people charged with little more - a guilty verdict would probably get you nothing more than £30 fine in my jurisidiction - but I would consider sports doping a somewhat more serious offence - a mixture of drug pedalling and fraud
I have had this discussion before, and received very similar responses, so it's not surprising. I tried to hint at my reasoning but will now come flat out and state it unequivocally:

I personally, do not want to go to jail. If I did something that warranted jail, I would far rather a community order or other way of paying back my "debt to society".

I cannot then, in all good conscience, come up with a rule that says dopers go to jail. It's not right.

The only instance where I feel jail is warranted is when the person is a direct threat to others in society. Doping is clearly not a threat to others in society.

I am operating from a - potentially naive - assumption that riders do not want to dope. That they love cycling, get good at it, and want to earn a living from it, but initially do it for the love of the sport, its beauty and its spectacle, of overcoming self.

I'd far rather effort and energy went into coming up with the structures that allow someone like Richie Porte to spill the beans and stay in the sport, dumping Wiggins and whoever else into the soup. Coz we are far more likely to have that happen than actually catch these guys doping.

"The Clear" is a ready example of not ever having a hope of catching dopers using a designer drug.

And so we're back at my original thought: start with the riders. And the more I think about it, the more it sounds like a truth and reconciliation commission - not an amnesty - where everything gets spilled, but before that happens, structures are in place to prevent omerta or facilitate open communication once the dust settles. Whistleblower structures, etc.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
I am operating from a - potentially naive - assumption that riders do not want to dope. That they love cycling, get good at it, and want to earn a living from it, but initially do it for the love of the sport, its beauty and its spectacle, of overcoming self.

I'd far rather effort and energy went into coming up with the structures that allow someone like Richie Porte to spill the beans and stay in the sport, dumping Wiggins and whoever else into the soup. Coz we are far more likely to have that happen than actually catch these guys doping.


I accept the Riders are not the whole problem. Indeed, I would go further and accept in most cases (though not LA's) that they aren't even the major part of the problem.

But I am absolute adamant on this. They ARE part of the problem.

They may not be complete villians. But I do not, do not accept the are complete victims either.

In my view, it stands to reason in a peleton of many hundreds of riders - some will not dope; some will dope under duress; some will dope freely but reluctantly; but some will dope without much concern at all, and a few will dope with relish.

In athletics you see this spread; from those who did something stupid in their youth or a moment of desperation or under duress (many of the east german females from the '80s didn't even know), to cast iron sh*ts who grabbed the dope with both hands (Jones, Montgomery, Gatlin, Mullins, the Greeks) and could give a damn about the future of the sport.

And along side them you have people who are infatuted with the sport, just hate dope (Gay, Ato Boldon) who'd rather walk away, frankly, than put up with that sh*t.

In swimming, the same - kids destroyed by Ma, to crooks like the De Briuns.

I personally think, even in LA's case, that Bruyneel is a worse sh*t than Armstrong, because he corrupted an entire team to a culture. Armstrong was just after himself; greedy, bullying, crooked - but Bruyneel sat back and let the cancer survivor take those risks with his body, with no risk to himself.

But we need to get both - rider, and team director. I can't accept that riders are all, basically, victims.

I note you say you don't want to go to jail. I don't think anybody does DW. But as a general rule, once society has decided a certain activity should be a criminal offence, we're not in the habit of giving the perpetrators a veto over whether or not it's criminalised.

So to riders who say they don't want to go to jail, the answer is absolutely simple - don't dope, and you won't.

Bear in mind, no criminal offence can be installed with retrospectivity - no action before the legislation is made could be made criminal by the new legislation - it would be for future events only.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
The other way to look at it is the risk of jail just raised the IQ limit on doping protocols, and the French decided they were not (yet) intelligent enough.

One of the arguments raised here, often, is that UK Postal do not have the same problems as US Postal in terms of blatant in your face evidence or testimony.

But if the peloton are anything, they are learners, by osmosis or otherwise. And to me it makes far more sense that the protocols are being fine-tuned. That the collective doping IQ of the peloton is being raised, slowly but surely.

It certainly helps if Ashenden goes around telling everyone how to beat the biological passport with some EPO micro-dosing and that plasticizers only have a 3 hour detection window.
I don't think that idea holds water - that somehow a disconnected group of riders and teams can essentially groupthink to the conclusion that they aren't quite smart enough to dope...
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
martinvickers said:
I don't think that idea holds water - that somehow a disconnected group of riders and teams can essentially groupthink to the conclusion that they aren't quite smart enough to dope...
That's not the idea at all, so I can only agree that "a disconnected group of riders and teams can essentially groupthink to the conclusion that they aren't quite smart enough to dope" does not hold water.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
martinvickers said:
I note you say you don't want to go to jail. I don't think anybody does DW. But as a general rule, once society has decided a certain activity should be a criminal offence, we're not in the habit of giving the perpetrators a veto over whether or not it's criminalised.

So to riders who say they don't want to go to jail, the answer is absolutely simple - don't dope, and you won't.
But it's not society saying this. So far it's just you. It seems slightly arrogant to say because you think the riders should go to jail that all of society has now decided. I am part of that society, and I disagree. So now it's 50/50 as to whether they go to jail. And when is it society deciding, ever? It's concentrated decision power in the hands of but a few.

But you're not even inviting discussion - you're just hardballing it.

Exactly like the manifesto - forget about actually looking at the root cause of the problem, stuff more and harsher penalties on it instead.

It's a lazy solution at best.

And still ignoring all the enablers.

"Your justice would freeze beer"

Brits were sent to Australia for stealing bread to feed their starving families is how the story goes. It's wrong, no matter what "society" thought at the time.

And who said anything about victims - if anything I blame the riders for sticking themselves, but it doesn't give anyone carte blanche to send them to jail for that.

I might come back and edit this to tone it down but for now I'll leave it, because I think the total lack of GAF exhibited needs to be balanced by someone who does GAF.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
How is jail as a penalty going for reducing:
violent crime
murder
larceny
drug running
etc?

Jail is not the answer.

I realise this is going OT, in fact manifesto vs UCI proving their credibility is OT. So I'll can it there.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
How is jail as a penalty going for reducing:
violent crime
murder
larceny
drug running
etc?

Jail is not the answer.

I realise this is going OT, in fact manifesto vs UCI proving their credibility is OT. So I'll can it there.
Poor comparison. How many doping cyclists are murderers, drug runners of recreational narcotics, instigators and thugs committing violent crimes?

Apart from the drug running component your analogy is poor. It's about character and how far some people will go. The criminal activities you list are predominantly undertaken by people of a set psychological constraint. Gaol, not jail (your an Aussie and should know this), does little to deter such activities because the psyche of the transgressors is not one akin to empathy or fear. They view gaol as a badge of honour. The thought of gaol time if caught does not strike fear into their hearts and minds and thus does not deter them enough to modify their unjust behaviour.

Contrast this with your common cyclists. Get caught doping, increasing the means to catch doping, add in dodgy BioPassport violations that DO get checked and scrutinised freely and I can guarantee based on psychology and the mindset of most riders they will be scared sh1tless of going to gaol. They would modify their behaviour. Next time remember the psychological condition of your subject matter. All people are not equal in this context and to draw a conclusion like you did whilst ignoring this reality is simply committing yourself to folly. Read the doping manifests...the guys who have been arrested in France and strip searched and thrown in a cell for a night by the gendarmeries did not have fun. They were very concerned for their safety. The truth of how far they'd fallen sank in for many. Gaol time is a must IMO for certain violations. The authorities need to put the fear of God into the peloton and especially the managers, doctors and DS. Immediate gaol time for them if a rider under their care gets caught. They'll make sure the dodgy ones do not ride.
 
Dec 30, 2010
391
0
0
From the top down or from the bottom up ?

Glancing over some of these threads, ( all with good points ) i dont think we can realisticly agree on whether or not we should fix the cycling mess from the bottom up ( rider ) or from the top down ( institutions like UCI ) .
I think the best approach might be to attack the issues from all sides at once .

I believe , if we use a simple wheel as the base model and consider the rider the hub of the wheel , that would be a great starting point . The Rider is what it is all about , without the Rider , nothing else really matters.

If the cyclist/ athlete is hub then everything else can become spokes to that hub . So every other entity is a spoke from the hook at the hub to the nipple at the rim . There are many organisations to make the sport of cycling what it is , and there are many spokes . Therefore each spoke must make sure it has its nipple tightened the proper amount to make that spoke hold its place in the wheel correctly and true . If just one spoke has the wrong tension or has a corrupt nipple , then the whole wheel runs out of balance and does not achieve its potential . That little issue means other spokes end up having to be tightened or loosened to make up the difference and restore the balance and trueness of the wheel . In reality it is never really achieved .
If Uci , wada , usada and all the national programs and others ,of each country represent the spokes of the wheel , then it goes stand without reason that there is a lot of work to do at the trueing stand .
All spokes must work together at the same time from all directions in order to fix a broken wheel . There is no other way . Or the wheel remains unbalanced , not centered , and untrue . Cheating the very athlete and fan it is supposed to help .
I hope this helps in deciding what to do and where to start from .

Like the motto of the Three Musketeers , All for one and one for all .
( all spokes for one hub and one hub for all spokes )
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
But it's not society saying this. So far it's just you. It seems slightly arrogant to say because you think the riders should go to jail that all of society has now decided. I am part of that society, and I disagree. So now it's 50/50 as to whether they go to jail. And when is it society deciding, ever? It's concentrated decision power in the hands of but a few.
I don't recall ever suggesting that because I think it, that means society has decided it -I made two connected but separate points.
1 : I believe it should be a criminal offence to dope, also to facilitate doping, etc, and that I would be open to aiding any group whose aim was to bring this about.
2: that IF a law were to be passed in any country to do so, it would be unusual in the extreme before passing that law to ask the 'would-be' criminals for their permission.

since I don't get to pass laws on my own, or frankly at all, it follows that I was NOT equating myself with society.

But you're not even inviting discussion - you're just hardballing it.

Exactly like the manifesto - forget about actually looking at the root cause of the problem, stuff more and harsher penalties on it instead.

It's a lazy solution at best.

And still ignoring all the enablers.
My idea would very clearly criminalize dodgy doctors, directors and bosses - how is that ignoring the enablers?



Brits were sent to Australia for stealing bread to feed their starving families is how the story goes. It's wrong, no matter what "society" thought at the time.
Actually, I'm Irish, and there were plenty of us sent too. You may have heard a song called the fields of athenry. I find it hard to take seriously a comparison between Bruyneel and Riis and starving 19th century peasants.

And who said anything about victims - if anything I blame the riders for sticking themselves, but it doesn't give anyone carte blanche to send them to jail for that.
Who's looking for 'carte blanche'? that doesn't even mean anything - I'm advocating a change in the law, as i'm perfectly entitled to do - no more, no less.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
martinvickers said:
Who's looking for 'carte blanche'? that doesn't even mean anything - I'm advocating a change in the law, as i'm perfectly entitled to do - no more, no less.
Firstly, in your original post - you said jail the riders. No mention by you was made of jailing anyone else.
ETA: this is plainly wrong - my apologies. We were discussing riders and I misread your response.

Secondly, the jailing punishment was raised without putting any thought or effort into the underlying causes of doping or even talking to riders to find a more attractive solution.

That's what I mean by carte blanche - you literally leapt to jail as the answer, with no discussion of anything else.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Galic Ho said:
Poor comparison. How many doping cyclists are murderers, drug runners of recreational narcotics, instigators and thugs committing violent crimes?

Contrast this with your common cyclists. Get caught doping, increasing the means to catch doping, add in dodgy BioPassport violations that DO get checked and scrutinised freely and I can guarantee based on psychology and the mindset of most riders they will be scared sh1tless of going to gaol. They would modify their behaviour. Next time remember the psychological condition of your subject matter. All people are not equal in this context and to draw a conclusion like you did whilst ignoring this reality is simply committing yourself to folly. Read the doping manifests...the guys who have been arrested in France and strip searched and thrown in a cell for a night by the gendarmeries did not have fun. They were very concerned for their safety. The truth of how far they'd fallen sank in for many. Gaol time is a must IMO for certain violations. The authorities need to put the fear of God into the peloton and especially the managers, doctors and DS. Immediate gaol time for them if a rider under their care gets caught. They'll make sure the dodgy ones do not ride.
martinvickers says Frenchies stopped doping because of the threat of jail, and he wants to see more of it:

martinvickers said:
For me, personally, I would welcome a strong campaign to make doping, supplying dope, facilitating doping, and, hell, omerta itself, criminal offences in every country (and not just for cycling i might add) that is a member of UCI/IOC, on pain of exclusion for the country that won't. And that means criminal, with jail time (it's both drug pushing and fraud as far as i'm concerned) for the rider, the doctor, the SD's, the Riis's, the Brailsfords, the Vaughters, the Ekimovs, the Vini'f***ing'kourovs.

The Festina debacle did nothing to clean up cycling...except, oddly, to a small extent, in France - where the fear of jail seems to have had some small effect - reflected in the limited French success since.
Steve Houanard just got caught doping for EPO.
Jeanie Longo's husband is on the ropes for ordering a great whack of EPO.
Europecar are being investigated.
Micahel Delage was excluded from Nationals for elevated cortisol levels.

Is that enough examples that the jail threat in France is not preventing French people from doping?

Let me know - I can keep going. Or you can just check out dopeology.org for more yourself.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
stainlessguy1 said:
Glancing over some of these threads, ( all with good points ) i dont think we can realisticly agree on whether or not we should fix the cycling mess from the bottom up ( rider ) or from the top down ( institutions like UCI ) .
I think the best approach might be to attack the issues from all sides at once .
This. It's about everyone doing what they can to fix the problem as they see it, preferably helping each other out wherever possible instead of shooting each other down for 'doing it wrong'.

My analogy is the tactics of riders colluding to repeatedly attack the strongest rider until the favourite cracks. Who knows which attack will be successful, but if the attacks keep coming, cracking is inevitable.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts